Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40762911›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Unsolicited Patient Complaints and Industry Payments for US Physicians.

Yong Hyun Park, Henry John Domenico, Zhuo Tony Su, Bruce J Trock, Yuezhou Jing, Gerald Hickson, William O Cooper, Misop Han

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Yong Hyun ParkJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Henry John DomenicoDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Zhuo Tony SuJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bruce J TrockJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Yuezhou JingJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Gerald HicksonDepartments of Pediatrics and Health Policy, Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
William O CooperDepartments of Pediatrics and Health Policy, Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Misop HanJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Both commitment to patient welfare and conflict of interest management are important components of physician professionalism. However, the interplay between them has not been well explored. Objective: To examine the association between unsolicited patient complaints, measured by Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS) Index, and acceptance of general (nonresearch) payments from industry, including significant payments, defined as exceeding $5000 annually. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included physicians at health care sites participating in the PARS program. General payments accepted by physicians from industry were identified from the Open Payments Program database. Data were collected from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2020, and linked using National Provider Identifier numbers. Data were analyzed from April 5, 2024, to May 12, 2025. Exposure: The physician's highest PARS Index score, categorized as 0, 1 to 20, 21 to 50, and 51 or greater. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome of interest was acceptance of general payments, any or exceeding $5000 annually. Ordinal regression was used to assess the association between PARS Index scores and general payments. Results: This analysis included 71 944 physicians (27 065 [37.6%] female; mean [SD] age in 2015, 45 [12.5] years), with 44 296 (61.6%) practicing in academic settings. The most common specialties were internal medicine (30 043 physicians [41.8%]), general surgery (6819 physicians [9.5%]), and anesthesiology (4461 physicians [6.2%]). Of the included physicians, 49 169 (68.3%) received at least 1 general payment, and 8067 (11.2%) received more than $5000 in a year; 30 979 physicians (43.1%) received unsolicited patient complaints. Median (IQR) PARS Index score was 2 (0-17). A higher PARS Index score was significantly associated with higher general payments accepted per year (eg, PARS Index score ≥51: odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.56-1.82; P < .001). This association remained significant after adjusting for physician gender, age, region, practice setting, and specialty. Male physicians (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.84-1.97) and physicians practicing at nonacademic settings (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19) were also more likely to receive higher general payments per year. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of nearly 72 000 physicians across the US, physicians with higher PARS Index scores, indicative of a higher risk of medical malpractice claims, worse patient outcomes, and well-being concerns, were more likely to accept industry payments, particularly in higher amounts. These findings underscore the importance of conflict of interest review and management to support medical professionalism and patient trust.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestPatient SatisfactionPhysiciansAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40762911
PMCPMC12326278

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.