Observational studyJAMA network open2019
Analysis of Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to UK Health Care Organizations in 2015.
Observational study in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmaceutical company promotional payments to English general practices: a longitudinal study.BJGP open · 2026Article
- Patient organizations involvement in healthcare: a rapid review and conceptual framework.Globalization and health · 2026Review
- Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of financial relationships between board certified allergists and the pharmaceutical industry in Japan.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Industry payments to family medicine residents in Portugal: a descriptive analysis of the national transparency database.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical payments to Japanese board-certified gastroenterologists between 2016 and 2019.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency.Globalization and health · 2023Article
- Characteristics and Distribution of Scholarship Donations From Pharmaceutical Companies to Japanese Healthcare Institutions in 2017: A Cross-sectional Analysis.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Review
- Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: A four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database.PloS one · 2023Article
- Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board-Certified Infectious Disease Specialists: A Four-Year Retrospective Analysis of Payments from 92 Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Awareness and Perceptions among Members of a Japanese Cancer Patient Advocacy Group Concerning the Financial Relationships between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Physicians.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Nature and Trends in Personal Payments Made to the Respiratory Physicians by Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2022Article
- Review
- Financial conflicts of interest between pharmaceutical companies and the authors of urology clinical practice guidelines in Japan.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- How Do Institutional Conflicts of Interest Between Pharmaceutical Companies and the Healthcare Sector Become Corrupt? A Case Study of Scholarship Donations Between Department of Clinical Anesthesiology, Mie University, and Ono Pharmaceutical in Japan.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Drug company payments to General Practices in England: Cross-sectional and social network analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
- A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Drug company payments to health care organizations can create conflicts of interest. However, little is known about such financial relationships, especially outside the United States. Objective: To examine the concentration and patterns of drug company payments to health care organizations in the United Kingdom. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study examined nonresearch payments reported in the industry-run Disclosure UK database. Companies participating in Disclosure UK in 2015 and health care organizations receiving their payments were included in the analysis. The data were analyzed descriptively at the health care organization, payment, and donor levels, considering health care organization categories, payment categories, and companies from February 5 through May 28, 2017, with follow-up checks from June 1 through August 31, 2018. Analysis was conducted from July 10 through December 20, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Share of funding and the Gini index (GI) to measure payment concentration (0 indicates perfect deconcentration [eg, all drug companies provide the same value of payments]; 1, perfect concentration [eg, 1 company provides the entire value of payments]) and median and interquartile range (IQR) to measure payment patterns. Results: A total of 4028 health care organizations received 19 933 payments, worth US $72 110 156.6, from 100 companies. This study identified 11 categories of health care organizations, with 3-public-sector secondary and tertiary care providers, education and research providers, and professional organizations-accumulating 67.2% of funding. The health care organization categories had varying GIs (range, 0.65-0.92), medians (range, $750.3-$45 862.4), and IQRs (range, $389.1-$1843.9 to $3104.4-$199 868.2). Of 4 payment categories, the top category-donations and grants-captured 50.6% of funding. Joint working (collaborative projects with nonindustry partners) had a lower GI (0.64) than other payment categories (range, 0.79-0.84). The median and IQR were the lowest for contributions to costs of events ($366.8; IQR, $229.3-611.3) and highest for joint working ($14 903.7; IQR, $3185.0-34,748.4). The top 10 firms (58.6% of funding) had payments with varying medians (from $366.8 [IQR, $244.5-611.3] to $9781.3 [IQR, $1834.0-48 906.7]). Conclusions and Relevance: Although organizations from across the health care system received funding, the payments were concentrated on a few large donors, payments, and recipients. Different payment and recipient categories had different patterns of payment values, suggesting that the industry has diversified its funding strategies across different parts of the health care system. These results suggest that Disclosure UK requires improved transparency, particularly by including built-in recipient categories, and that organizational conflicts of interest need more policy attention, including disclosure of payments independent of the industry.
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.