Conflict of interest policies at Australian medical schools

Author:

Hooimeyer Ashleigh1ORCID,Lines Travis2,Mirzaei Janet3,Pande Preshita4,Ganeshamoorthy Sylviya5,Fabbri Alice6,Parker Lisa1ORCID,Dunn Adam G.7,Mintzes Barbara1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Charles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia

2. Alfred Health Melbourne Victoria Australia

3. School of Medicine University of Notre Dame Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia

4. Faculty of Medicine University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia

5. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine Bond University Gold Coast Queensland Australia

6. Department for Health University of Bath Bath United Kingdom

7. Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPharmaceutical industry exposure is widespread during medical training and may affect education and clinical decision‐making. Medical faculties' conflict of interest (COI) policies help to limit this exposure and protect students against commercial influence.AimsOur aim was to investigate the prevalence, content and strength of COI policies at Australian medical schools and changes since a previous assessment conducted in 2009.MethodsWe identified policies by searching medical school and host university websites in January 2021, and contacted deans to identify any missed policies. We applied a modified version of a scorecard developed in previous studies to examine the content of COI policies. All data were coded in duplicate. COI policies were rated on a scale from 0 (no policy) to 2 (strong policy) across 11 items per medical school. Oversight mechanisms and sanctions were also assessed, and current policies were compared with the 2009 study.ResultsOf 155 potentially relevant policies, 153 were university‐wide and two were specific to medical schools. No policies covered sales representatives, on‐site sponsored education or free samples. Oversight of consultancies had improved substantially, with 76% of schools requiring preapproval. Disclosure policies, while usually present, were weak, with no public disclosure required.ConclusionWe found little indication that Australian medical students are protected from commercial influence on medical education, and there has been limited COI policy development within the past decade. More attention is needed to ensure the independence of medical education in Australia.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Internal Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3