Literature DB >> 22407146

Of mugs, meals and more: the intricate relations between physicians and the medical industry.

Stephan Sahm1.   

Abstract

Empirical research has proven the influence exerted by the medical industry on physicians' decision-making. Physicians are the gatekeepers who determine how money is spent within the healthcare system. Hence, they are the target group of powerful lobbies in the field, i.e. the manufacturers of medical devices and the pharmaceutical industry. As clinical research lies in the hands of physicians, they play an exclusive and central role in launching new medical products. There are many ethical problems involved here: physicians may develop a mindset of entitlement; biased decisions may put patients at risk; academic interests and research activities will no longer be free if they are influenced considerably by financial incentives; fair resource allocation may be restricted. An aspect that has been neglected so far is the administrators' involvement as they not rarely expect physicians to acquire external financial resources from industry as benefits often lie with the institutions. To "protect" physicians from undue sway may be in the best interest of patients in order to guarantee a fair allocation of resources and to prevent the application of technologies (and medications) that would not have been used according to current standards of care. The latter may and obviously does put patients at risk. On the other hand, medico-industrial relations are of great importance. A considerable part of medical progress is driven by private industry. Yet, any co-operation between those who care for patients and industry ultimately has to serve the patient. Hence, strong policies to guide conduct are sorely needed. The following points are held to be pivotal in order to secure ethical conduct: (1) professional codes of ethics; (2) a stronger academic attitude amongst medical staff, (3) rules of transparency for medico-industrial relations including online disclosure and limiting scale of payments, (4) establishing rules (and laws) that ban unethical conduct and mandate vigorous surveillance of adherence to guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22407146     DOI: 10.1007/s11019-012-9391-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Health Care Philos        ISSN: 1386-7423


  36 in total

1.  The ethics of pharmaceutical industry relationships with medical students.

Authors:  Wendy A Rogers; Peter R Mansfield; Annette J Braunack-Mayer; Jon N Jureidini
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2004-04-19       Impact factor: 7.738

2.  Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials.

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; Jason W Busse; Dianne Jackowski; Victor M Montori; Holger Schünemann; Sheila Sprague; Derek Mears; Emil H Schemitsch; Dianne Heels-Ansdell; P J Devereaux
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Toward more uniform conflict disclosures--the updated ICMJE conflict of interest reporting form.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Drazen; Peter W de Leeuw; Christine Laine; Cynthia Mulrow; Catherine D DeAngelis; Frank A Frizelle; Fiona Godlee; Charlotte Haug; Paul C Hébert; Astrid James; Sheldon Kotzin; Ana Marusic; Humberto Reyes; Jacob Rosenberg; Peush Sahni; Martin B Van der Weyden; Getu Zhaori
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Resident and faculty perceptions of conflict of interest in medical education.

Authors:  Peter Y Watson; Akshay K Khandelwal; Joseph L Musial; John D Buckley
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Relationship between drug company funding and outcomes of clinical psychiatric research.

Authors:  Robert E Kelly; Lisa J Cohen; Randye J Semple; Philip Bialer; Adam Lau; Alison Bodenheimer; Elana Neustadter; Arkady Barenboim; Igor I Galynker
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2006-08-08       Impact factor: 7.723

Review 6.  The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences: part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication.

Authors:  Gisela Schott; Henry Pachl; Ulrich Limbach; Ursula Gundert-Remy; Klaus Lieb; Wolf-Dieter Ludwig
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Physicians' behavior and their interactions with drug companies. A controlled study of physicians who requested additions to a hospital drug formulary.

Authors:  M M Chren; C S Landefeld
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-03-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Publication bias and clinical trials.

Authors:  K Dickersin; S Chan; T C Chalmers; H S Sacks; H Smith
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1987-12

9.  Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles.

Authors:  Lenard I Lesser; Cara B Ebbeling; Merrill Goozner; David Wypij; David S Ludwig
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others.

Authors:  Lisa Bero; Fieke Oostvogel; Peter Bacchetti; Kirby Lee
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  1 in total

1.  (Re)disclosing physician financial interests: rebuilding trust or making unreasonable burdens on physicians?

Authors:  Daniel Sperling
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2017-06
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.