Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36332951›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

How are declarations of interest working? A cross-sectional study in declarations of interest in healthcare practice in Scotland and England in 2020/2021.

Margaret McCartney, Raphaella Bergeron Hartman, Harriet Feldman, Ronald MacDonald, Frank Sullivan, C Heneghan, Calum McCutcheon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Margaret McCartneyUniversity of St Andrews, University of St Andrews Bute Medical School, St Andrews, Fife, UK mm494@st-andrews.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7238-6358
Raphaella Bergeron HartmanUniversity of St Andrews, University of St Andrews Bute Medical School, St Andrews, Fife, UK.
Harriet FeldmanUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ronald MacDonaldUniversity of St Andrews, University of St Andrews Bute Medical School, St Andrews, Fife, UK.
Frank SullivanUniversity of St Andrews, University of St Andrews Bute Medical School, St Andrews, Fife, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6623-4964
C HeneghanUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Calum McCutcheonMedical School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
University of St Andrews · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand arrangements for healthcare organisations' declarations of staff interest in Scotland and England in the context of current recommendations.

designCross-sectional study of a random selection of National Health Service (NHS) hospital registers of interest by two independent observers in England, all NHS Boards in Scotland and a random selection of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England.

settingNHS Trusts in England (NHSE), NHS Boards in Scotland, CCGs in England, and private healthcare organisations.

participantsRegisters of declarations of interest published in a random sample of 67 of 217 NHS Trusts, a random sample of 15 CCGs of in England, registers held by all 14 NHS Scotland Boards and a purposeful selection of private hospitals/clinics in the UK.

main outcome measuresAdherence to NHSE guidelines on declarations of interests, and comparison in Scotland.

results76% of registers published by Trusts did not routinely include all declaration of interest categories recommended by NHS England. In NHS Scotland only 14% of Boards published staff registers of interest. Of these employee registers (most obtained under Freedom of Information), 27% contained substantial retractions. In England, 96% of CCGs published a Gifts and Hospitality register, with 67% of CCG staff declaration templates and 53% of governor registers containing full standard NHS England declaration categories. Single organisations often held multiple registers lacking enough information to interpret them. Only 35% of NHS Trust registers were organised to enable searching. None of the private sector organisations studied published a comparable declarations of interest register.

conclusionDespite efforts, the current system of declarations frequently lacks ability to meaningfully obtain complete healthcare professionals' declaration of interests.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelState MedicineCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareEnglandHumansScotlandhealth policymedical ethicsquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36332951
PMCPMC9639127
OpenAlexW4308209386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.