Orthopaedic Surgery and Indusry: What our Potential Patients Believe

Abstract

Purpose: Physician and surgeon involvement in industry has received considerable attention in recent decades. In this study, we outline the perspective of the general US population regarding (1) disclosure, (2) ownership, and (3) compensation between physicians/surgeons and industry. We hypothesize that the general population would be largely supportive of the physician/surgeon-industry relationship. Methods: An online, survey-based, descriptive study was conducted through a crowdsourcing platform, Amazon Mechanical Turk. Survey respondents were presented with a seven-item questionnaire inquiring about the physician/surgeon and industry relationship. An “attention check” question was included; those who failed this question were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the data and a McNemar chi-squared test for paired, dichotomous data. Results: A total of 993 respondents were included. Survey responses are summarized in Table 1. 70.6% of respondents stated that it was “important” or “extremely important” to disclose that the patient be informed whether implants used in surgery had been developed by the operating surgeon. 71.1% of respondents reported that it was “important” or “extremely important” to disclose partial ownership within industry. Seventy-one percent of respondents stated it was “important” or “extremely important” to disclose royalty payments pertaining to surgical implants. 95.6% of respondents suggested that it was acceptable for surgeons to accept free airfare and lodging, and 95.2% of respondents stated that it was acceptable for the surgeon to be compensated for time away from practice to learn about new equipment. Discussion: In our survey of 993 respondents, we found that relationships with industry are considered acceptable if appropriate disclosure is given to patients. We also found that although respondents suggested that physicians and surgeons may be influenced by a free meal, compensation for trips to try new equipment and time spent away from practice is considered appropriate. Level of evidence: 2c, Ecological studies.