Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33566836›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Conflict of interest policies at Belgian medical faculties: Cross-sectional study indicates little oversight.

Lucas Bechoux, Oriane De Vleeschouwer, Cécile Vanheuverzwijn, Florence Verhegghen, Alizée Detiffe, Fabian Colle, Catherine Fallon, François Thoreau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lucas BechouxPolitical Science Department, Spiral Research Center, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0798-6274
Oriane De VleeschouwerGeneral Practitioner, Lhomme et Santé Medical Center, Saint-Hubert, Belgium.
Cécile VanheuverzwijnGeneral Practitioner, Triangle Medical Center, Anderlecht, Belgium.
Florence VerhegghenGeneral Practitioner, Cassiopée Medical Center, Schaerbeek, Belgium.
Alizée DetiffeGeneral Practitioner, GRAS, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Fabian ColleTropical Medicine/Public Health, Housing First NPO, Brussels, Belgium.
Catherine FallonPolitical Science Department, Spiral Research Center, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
François ThoreauPolitical Science Department, Spiral Research Center, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical students encounter pharmaceutical promotion from the very start of their training. Medical schools have an important role to play in educating medical students regarding the interactions between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and industry and in protecting them from commercial influence and conflict of interest (COI). In 2019, medical student associations in Belgium and abroad called for more preparation in dealing with COI and for a more independent medical training. As little information is available on the situation in our country, we undertook an assessment of conflict of interest policies at Belgium's medical schools. We relied on a methodology already used in studies from USA, Canada, Australia, France and Germany and adapted it to the Belgian context.

methodsWe identified 10 medical schools in Belgium. We searched the website of each medical school in November 2019 with standardized keywords for COI policies and learning activities on COI in the curriculum. The deans of medicine were invited to participate by sending us information that we could have overlooked during our web-based searches. We also consulted personal contacts within faculties among students and teachers. Based on a list of 15 criteria adapted from North American and French studies, we calculated a total for each faculty of medicine with a maximum score of 30 points.

resultsBy December 2019, we had gathered a set of written documents for four faculties of medicine (40%) containing policies with varying degrees of precision and relevance to our survey. We found elements of the curriculum addressing the COI issue for one faculty (10%). In all cases, these policies consisted of "moderate" initiatives with little or no "restrictive" elements. Only one faculty showed interest in our study by providing us with relevant information (10%). Half of the faculty notified us of their refusal to participate in the study (50%) and the other faculties either did not respond or did not provide us with any information (40%). The maximum score obtained was 3 out of 30 points with six faculties scoring 0 (60%).

conclusionThere is little transparency regarding interactions between medical students and pharmaceutical companies at Belgian medical faculties, which may create COI issues. Initiatives to protect students from pharmaceutical promotion and to train them to manage their future interaction with pharmaceutical companies have a limited scope and are isolated. This is inconsistent with international recommendations from Health Action International, World Health Organization or the American Medical Students' Association. The Belgian government has legislated in favor of more transparency in the relation between HCPs and pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, it made the disclosure of benefits granted by the industry compulsory and limited their value. Our results show that there is still some way to go to ensure an independent medical training for future Belgian physicians.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestPolicyAttitude of Health PersonnelBelgiumCross-Sectional StudiesCurriculumDisclosureDrug IndustryEducation, MedicalFaculty, MedicalHumansSchools, MedicalStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID33566836
PMCPMC7875358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.