ArticleAmerican journal of public health2019
Pharmaceutical Industry Support of US Patient Advocacy Organizations: An International Context.
Article in American journal of public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and opportunities for participation in health policy decision-making by civil society groups organized for cancer in Chile: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Information About Canadian Patient Groups' Conflicts of Interest and Industry Funding-Incomplete, Inconsistent, and Unreliable: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2025Article
- Interactions Between Pharmaceutical Companies and Patient Advocacy Groups in Japan: A Qualitative and Quantitative Interview Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Disclosure of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding of Patient Organisations in Nordic Countries: Can Industry Self-Regulation Deliver on its Transparency Promise?International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- When patient advocacy organizations meet industry: a novel approach to dealing with financial conflicts of interest.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine whether the share of pharmaceutical industry funds allocated to patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) is disproportionately large in the United States relative to other industrialized countries and to compare pharmaceutical companies' disclosure practices across industrialized countries.
methodsWe examined funding of PAOs among the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in 2016. We compared funding allocated to organizations across 8 large industrialized countries and pharmaceutical companies' disclosure practices in each country.
resultsOnly 6 of the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies disclosed their financial transactions with PAOs in the United States. All 10 companies disclosed transactions in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, with varying levels of disclosure in other countries. In 2016, the 6 companies that disclosed transactions in the United States allocated 74% of their patient advocacy funding ($88 million) in the United States.
conclusionsThe disproportionate funding of US PAOs in the absence of any disclosure requirements suggests that the United States should consider adoption of regulatory actions to enhance the transparency of relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and PAOs, and to ensure the integrity of public health decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.