Attitudes and practices of public health academics towards research funding from for-profit organizations: cross-sectional survey

International Journal of Public Health - Tập 65 - Trang 1133-1145 - 2020
Rima Nakkash1, Ahmed Ali1, Hala Alaouie1, Khalil Asmar1, Norbert Hirschhorn2, Sanaa Mugharbil1, Iman Nuwayhid1, Leslie London3, Amina Saban3, Sabina Faiz Rashid4, Md Koushik Ahmed, Cecile Knai5, Charlotte Bigland6, Rima A. Afifi7
1Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
2Independent Consultant, Minneapolis, USA
3School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
4James P. Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
5London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
6UK Specialty Registrar, Severn Postgraduate Medical Education School of Public Health, Health Education England, London, UK
7Department of Community and Behavioral Health, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA

Tóm tắt

The growing trend of for-profit organization (FPO)-funded university research is concerning because resultant potential conflicts of interest might lead to biases in methods, results, and interpretation. For public health academic programmes, receiving funds from FPOs whose products have negative health implications may be particularly problematic. A cross-sectional survey assessed attitudes and practices of public health academics towards accepting funding from FPOs. The sampling frame included universities in five world regions offering a graduate degree in public health; 166 academics responded. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Over half of respondents were in favour of accepting funding from FPOs; attitudes differed by world region and gender but not by rank, contract status, % salary offset required, primary identity, or exposure to an ethics course. In the last 5 years, almost 20% of respondents had received funding from a FPO. Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that there was potential for bias in seven aspects of the research process, when funds were from FPOs. Globally, public health academics should increase dialogue around the potential harms of research and practice funded by FPOs.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Abbas EE (2007) Industry-sponsored research in developing countries. Contemp Clin Trials 28(6):677–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2007.02.011 Adams PJ (2007) Assessing whether to receive funding support from tobacco, alcohol, gambling and other dangerous consumption industries. Addiction 102(7):1027–1033. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01829.x Antes AL, Wang X, Mumford MD, Brown RP, Connelly S, Devenport LD (2010) Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 85(3):519. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd1cc5 Babor TF, Robaina K (2013) Public health, academic medicine, and the alcohol industry’s corporate social responsibility activities. Am J Public Health 103(2):206–214. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300847 BBSRC (n.d.) Diet and Health Research Industry Club (DRINC). https://bbsrc.ukri.org/innovation/sharing-challenges/drinc/. Accessed 30 Jan 2020 Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, Lee K (2007) Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug–drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040184 Blumenthal D, Gluck M, Louis KS, Stoto MA, Wise D (1986a) University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science 232(4756):1361–1366. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3715452 Blumenthal D, Gluck M, Louis KS, Wise D (1986b) Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science 231(4735):242–246. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3941897 Braithwaite D, Emery J, De Lusignan S, Sutton S (2003) Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract 20(5):545–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmg509 Brandt AM (2012) Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. Am J Public Health 102(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300292 Cohen JE, Zeller M, Eissenberg T, Parascandola M, O’Keefe R, Planinac L et al (2009) Criteria for evaluating tobacco control research funding programs and their application to models that include financial support from the tobacco industry. Tobacco Control 18(3):228–234. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2008.027623 Collin J, Hill SE, Eltanani MK, Plotnikova E, Ralston R, Smith KE (2017) Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? An analysis of attitudes to commercial sector engagement in health policy and research. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182612 Dyer O (2020) WHO retracts opioid guidelines after accepting that industry had an influence. British Medical Journal Publishing Group, London Fabbri A, Lai A, Grundy Q, Bero LA (2018) The influence of industry sponsorship on the research agenda: a scoping review. Am J Public Health 108(11):e9–e16. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304677 Glaser BE, Bero LA (2005) Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: a systematic review. Sci Eng Ethics 11(4):553–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0026-z Goldberg DS (2019) The shadows of sunlight: why disclosure should not be a priority in addressing conflicts of interest. Public Health Ethics 12(2):202–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phy016 Harman G (2001) University-industry research partnerships in Australia: extent, benefits and risks. Higher Educ Res Dev 20(3):245–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360120108340 Kalichman M (2013) Why teach research ethics? In: Practical guidance on science and engineering ethics education for instructors and administrators: papers and summary from a workshop, 12 Dec 2012 Lipton S, Boyd E, Bero L (2004) Conflicts of interest in academic research: policies, processes, and attitudes. Account Res Policies Qual Assur 11(2):83–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620490512241 Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L (2017) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3 Malone RE, Chapman S, Gupta PC, Nakkash R, Ntiabang T, Bianco E et al (2017) A “frank statement” for the 21st century?. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd., London Marks JH (2019) The perils of partnership: industry influence, institutional integrity, and public health. University Press, Oxford Marten R, Hawkins B (2018) Stop the toasts: the Global Fund’s disturbing new partnership. The Lancet 391(10122):735–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30253-8 McCambridge J, Mialon M (2018) Alcohol industry involvement in science: a systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community. Drug Alcohol Rev 37(5):565–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12826 Moynihan R, Bero L, Hill S, Johansson M, Lexchin J, Macdonald H et al (2019) Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6576 Nakkash RT, Mugharbil S, Alaouié H, Afifi RA (2016) Attitudes of public health academics toward receiving funds from for-profit corporations: a systematic review. Public Health Ethics 10(3):298–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phw036 Nestle M (2016) Corporate funding of food and nutrition research: science or marketing? JAMA Intern Med 176(1):13–14. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6667 Paixão MM, Mialon M (2019) Help or hindrance? The alcohol industry and alcohol control in Portugal. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(22):4554. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224554 Petticrew MP, Lee K, McKee M (2012) Type A behavior pattern and coronary heart disease: philip Morris’s “crown jewel”. Am J Public Health 102(11):2018–2025. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300816 Rasmussen K, Bero L, Redberg R, Gøtzsche PC, Lundh A (2018) Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross sectional study of publications and survey of lead academic authors. BMJ 363:k3654. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3654 Readon S (2018) Controversial alcohol study cancelled by US health agency. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05461-x. Accessed 30 Jan 2020 Rosenbaum JR (2003) Educating researchers: ethics and the protection of human research participants. Crit Care Med 31(3):S161–S166. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000054900.11370.FC Savell E, Gilmore AB, Fooks G (2014) How does the tobacco industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review. PLoS ONE 9(2):e87389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087389 Savell E, Fooks G, Gilmore AB (2016) How does the alcohol industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review. Addiction 111(1):18–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13048 Schmaling KB, Blume AW (2009) Ethics instruction increases graduate students’ responsible conduct of research knowledge but not moral reasoning. Account Res 16(5):268–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620903190323 Sismondo S (2008) Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 29(2):109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2007.08.001 Soares-Weiser K (2019) Cochrane announces a new, more rigorous “conflict of interest” policy. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/12/03/karla-soares-weiser-cochrane-announces-a-new-more-rigorous-conflict-of-interest-policy/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork. Accessed 30 Jan 2020