Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Health and Medicine: Current Evidence and Implications for Patient Decision Aid Development

Rachel Thompson, Zoe Paskins, Barry G. Main, Thaddeus Mason Pope, Evelyn C. Y. Chan, Ben W. Moulton, Michael J. Barry and Clarence H. Braddock
Additional contact information
Rachel Thompson: School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Zoe Paskins: School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
Barry G. Main: Centre for Surgical Research and National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, School of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Thaddeus Mason Pope: Health Law Institute, Mitchell Hamline School of Law, Saint Paul, MN, USA
Evelyn C. Y. Chan: Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
Ben W. Moulton: Informed Consulting, LLC, Boston, MA, USA
Michael J. Barry: Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
Clarence H. Braddock: Deans Office, University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2021, vol. 41, issue 7, 768-779

Abstract: Background More stringent policies for addressing conflicts of interest have been implemented around the world in recent years. Considering the value of revisiting conflict of interest quality standards set by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, we sought to review evidence relevant to 2 questions: 1) What are the effects of different strategies for managing conflicts of interest? and 2) What are patients’ perspectives on conflicts of interest? Methods We conducted a narrative review of English-language articles and abstracts from 2010 to 2019 that reported relevant quantitative or qualitative research. Results Of 1743 articles and 118 abstracts identified, 41 articles and 2 abstracts were included. Most evidence on the effects of conflict of interest management strategies pertained only to subsequent compliance with the management strategy. This evidence highlighted substantial noncompliance with prevailing requirements. Evidence on patient perspectives on conflicts of interest offered several insights, including the existence of diverse views on the acceptability of conflicts of interest, the salience of conflict of interest type and monetary value to patients, and the possibility that conflict of interest disclosure could have unintended effects. We identified no published research on the effects of IPDAS Collaboration conflict of interest quality standards on patient decision making or outcomes. Limitations Because we did not conduct a systematic review, we may have missed some evidence relevant to our review questions. In addition, our team did not include patient partners. Conclusions The findings of this review have implications for the management of conflicts of interest not only in patient decision aid development but also in clinical practice guideline development, health and medical research reporting, and health care delivery.

Keywords: clinical practice guidelines; competing interests; conflict of interest; patient decision aids; patient perspectives (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211008881 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:768-779

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211008881

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().