Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37495392›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

'You feel like you've been duped': is the current system for health professionals declaring potential conflicts of interest in the UK fit for purpose? A mixed methods study.

Margaret McCartney, Katrin Metsis, Ronald MacDonald, Frank Sullivan, Gozde Ozakinci, Anne-Marie Boylan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Margaret McCartneySchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK mm494@st-andrews.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7238-6358
Katrin MetsisSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0827-6557
Ronald MacDonaldSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6197-5675
Frank SullivanSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6623-4964
Gozde OzakinciDepartment of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Anne-Marie BoylanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8187-0742
University of St Andrews · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand: if professionals, citizens and patients can locate UK healthcare professionals' statements of declarations of interests, and what citizens understand by these.

designThe study sample included two groups of participants in three phases. First, healthcare professionals working in the public domain (health professional participants, HPP) were invited to participate. Their conflicts and declarations of interest were searched for in publicly available data, which the HPP checked and confirmed as the 'gold standard'. In the second phase, laypeople, other healthcare professionals and healthcare students were invited to complete three online tasks. The first task was a questionnaire about their own demographics. The second task was questions about doctors' conflicts of interest in clinical vignette scenarios. The third task was a request for each participant to locate and describe the declarations of interest of one of the named healthcare professionals identified in the first phase, randomly assigned. At the end of this task, all lay participants were asked to indicate willingness to be interviewed at a later date. In the third phase, each lay respondent who was willing to be contacted was invited to a qualitative interview to obtain their views on the conflicts and declaration of interest they found and their meaning.

settingOnline, based in the UK.

participants13 public-facing health professionals, 379 participants (healthcare professionals, students and laypeople), 21 lay interviewees. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Participants' level of trust in professionals with variable conflicts of interest, as expressed in vignettes, (2) participants' ability to locate the declarations of interest of a given well-known healthcare professional and (3) laypeoples' understanding of healthcare professionals declarations and conflicts of interest.

resultsIn the first phase, 13 health professionals (HPP) participated and agreed on a 'gold standard' of their declarations. In the second phase, 379 citizens, patients, other healthcare professionals and students participated. Not all completed all aspects of the research. 85% of participants thought that knowing about professional declarations was definitely or probably important, but 76.8% were not confident they had found all relevant information after searching. As conflicts of interest increased in the vignettes, participants trusted doctors less. Least trust was associated with doctors who had not disclosed their conflicts of interest. 297 participants agreed to search for the HPP 'gold standard' declaration of interest, and 169 reported some data. Of those reporting any findings, 61 (36%) located a relevant link to some information deemed fit for purpose, and 5 (3%) participants found all the information contained in the 'gold standard'. In the third phase, qualitative interviews with 21 participants highlighted the importance of transparency but raised serious concerns about how useful declarations were in their current format, and whether they could improve patient care. Unintended consequences, such as the burden for patients and professionals to use declarations were identified, with participants additionally expressing concerns about professional bias and a lack of insight over conflicts. Suggestions for improvements included better regulation and organisation, but also second opinions and independent advice where conflicts of interest were suspected.

conclusionDeclarations of interest are important and conflicts of interest concern patients and professionals, particularly in regard to trust in decision-making. If declarations, as currently made, are intended to improve transparency, they do not achieve this, due to difficulties in locating and interpreting them. Unintended consequences may arise if transparency alone is assumed to provide management of conflicts. Increased trust resulting from transparency may be misplaced, given the evidence on the hazards associated with conflicts of interest. Clarity about the purposes of transparency is required. Future policies may be more successful if focused on reducing the potential for negative impacts of conflicts of interest, rather than relying on individuals to locate declarations and interpret them. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol was pre-registered at https://osf.io/e7gtq.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestEmotionsHealth PersonnelHumansTrustUnited KingdomHealth policyHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTInformation managementMEDICAL ETHICSPatient-Centered CareProtocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID37495392
PMCPMC10373698
OpenAlexW4385281571

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.