ArticleBMJ open2020
Mixed methods evaluation of workshops for citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interests in healthcare.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- "I never thought of it as payment": Qualitative evaluation of workshops with advanced practice registered nurses on pharmaceutical industry payment reporting.Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2025Article
- Commercial influences on patient and public involvement: a renewed call for research and action.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- 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
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate workshops delivered to citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interest in healthcare, transparency databases which disclose industry payments in the USA and Australia and the pros and cons of advocacy groups accepting industry sponsorship.
designThematic analysis of workshop participant recorded discussions, and pre, post and 3-month follow-up questionnaires on confidence and knowledge about financial conflicts of interest, transparency databases and the merits of advocacy organisations accepting industry sponsorship. PARTICIPANTS AND
setting48 citizen health advocates participated in a half-day workshop, held in four Australian cities, which ended with a 1-hour recorded discussion. Participants were recruited with assistance from leading state-based health advocacy organisations.
resultsThe thematic analysis of the recorded discussions revealed two major themes, (i) transparency and (ii) relationships with industry; and three minor themes: a lack of awareness about conflicts of interest and transparency, issues relating to trust and next steps in terms of potential reforms. In relation to transparency, participants felt strong support for transparency, strongly favouring the mandatory, extensive and accessible US Open Payments over the self-regulatory Australian model. Participants also noted that transparency had limitations, including the utility of disclosed information. In relation to industry sponsorship of advocacy groups, some participants expressed an openness to and support for accepting sponsorship, while many expressed a caution around potential downsides. Questionnaire results showed increases in both confidence and knowledge after the workshop, though only 23 of 48 participants returned the 3-month follow-up questionnaire.
conclusionsFollowing a half-day workshop, citizen health advocates recruited by leading health advocacy organisations expressed strong support for tough transparency rules, and mixed feelings about advocacy groups accepting sponsorship from industry. Study limitations include a non-representative sample and a large drop-out at the 3-month post-workshop follow-up.
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.