ArticleBMJ open2024
Comparison of industry payments to psychiatrists and psychiatric advanced practice clinicians in the USA, 2021: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare industry payment patterns among US psychiatrists and psychiatric advanced practice clinicians (APCs) and determine how scope of practice laws has influenced these patterns.
designCross-sectional study.
settingThis study used the publicly available US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sunshine Act Open Payment database and the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) database for the year 2021.
participantsAll psychiatrists and psychiatric APCs (subdivided into nurse practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs)) included in either database. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and percentage of clinicians receiving industry payments and value of payments received. Total payments and number of transactions by type of payment, payment source and clinician type were also evaluated.
resultsA total of 85 053 psychiatric clinicians (61 011 psychiatrists (71.7%), 21 895 NPs (25.7%), 2147 CNSs (2.5%)) were reviewed; 16 240 (26.6%) psychiatrists received non-research payment from industry, compared with 10 802 (49.3%) NPs and 231 (10.7%) CNSs (p<0.001) for pairwise comparisons). Psychiatric NPs were significantly more likely to receive industry payments compared with psychiatrists (incidence rate ratio (IRR), 1.85 (95% CI 1.81 to 1.88); p<0.001)). Compared with psychiatrists, NPs were more likely to receive payments of > United States Dollars (US) $) 100 (33.9% vs 14.6%; IRR, 2.14 (2.08 to 2.20); p<0.001) and > US$ 1000 (5.3% vs 4.1%; IRR, 1.29 (1.20 to 1.38); p<0.001) but less likely to receive > US$ 10 000 (0.4% vs 1.0%; IRR, 0.39 (0.31 to 0.49); p<0.001). NPs in states with 'reduced' or 'restricted' scope of practice received more frequent payments (reduced: IRR, 1.22 (1.18 to 1.26); restricted: IRR, 1.26 (1.22 to 1.30), both p<0.001).
conclusionsPsychiatric NPs were nearly two times as likely to receive industry payments as psychiatrists, while psychiatric CNSs were less than half as likely to receive payment. Stricter scope of practice laws increases the likelihood of psychiatric NPs receiving payment, the opposite of what was found in a recent specialty agnostic study.
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.