Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research: A survey of the Australian experience

David A. Henry, Ian H. Kerridge, Suzanne R. Hill, Paul M. McNeill, Evan Doran, David A. Newby, Kim M. Henderson, Jane Maguire, Barrie J. Stokes, Graham J. Macdonald, Richard O. Day

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To characterise research relationships between medical specialists and the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. Design and setting: Questionnaire survey of medical specialists listed in the Medical Directory of Australia and believed to be in active practice, conducted in 2002 and 2003. Main outcome measures: Details of medical specialists' involvement in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research, and reports of potentially undesirable research outcomes. Results: Of 2120 specialists approached, 823 (39%) responded. Participation in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research was more commonly reported by those in salaried practice (49%) than those in private practice (33%); P < 0.001. 216 reported that industry had made initial contact, compared with 117 who had initiated contact with industry. 14.0% of respondents reported premature termination of industry-sponsored trials, which they considered appropriate when in response to concerns about adverse drug effects. 12.3% of respondents reported that industry staff had written first drafts of reports, which they viewed as an acceptable practice for "internal" documents only. Of greatest concern to respondents were instances of delayed publication or nonpublication of key negative findings (reported by 6.7% and 5.1% of respondents, respectively), and concealment of results (2.2%). Overall, 71 respondents (8.6%) had experienced at least one event that could represent breaches of research integrity. Conclusions: These data indicate a high level of engagement in research between the pharmaceutical industry and medical specialists, including those in private practice. Examples of possibly serious research misconduct were reported by 8.6% of respondents, equivalent to 21% of those with an active research relationship with industry.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)557-560
Number of pages4
JournalMedical Journal of Australia
Volume182
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - 6 Jun 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Drug Industry
Industry
Research
Private Practice
Scientific Misconduct
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Directories
Surveys and Questionnaires
Publications
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Cite this

Henry, D. A., Kerridge, I. H., Hill, S. R., McNeill, P. M., Doran, E., Newby, D. A., ... Day, R. O. (2005). Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research: A survey of the Australian experience. Medical Journal of Australia, 182(11), 557-560.
Henry, David A. ; Kerridge, Ian H. ; Hill, Suzanne R. ; McNeill, Paul M. ; Doran, Evan ; Newby, David A. ; Henderson, Kim M. ; Maguire, Jane ; Stokes, Barrie J. ; Macdonald, Graham J. ; Day, Richard O. / Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research : A survey of the Australian experience. In: Medical Journal of Australia. 2005 ; Vol. 182, No. 11. pp. 557-560.
@article{21532b2081c34629ae9bf7fd0d6293ec,
title = "Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research: A survey of the Australian experience",
abstract = "Objectives: To characterise research relationships between medical specialists and the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. Design and setting: Questionnaire survey of medical specialists listed in the Medical Directory of Australia and believed to be in active practice, conducted in 2002 and 2003. Main outcome measures: Details of medical specialists' involvement in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research, and reports of potentially undesirable research outcomes. Results: Of 2120 specialists approached, 823 (39{\%}) responded. Participation in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research was more commonly reported by those in salaried practice (49{\%}) than those in private practice (33{\%}); P < 0.001. 216 reported that industry had made initial contact, compared with 117 who had initiated contact with industry. 14.0{\%} of respondents reported premature termination of industry-sponsored trials, which they considered appropriate when in response to concerns about adverse drug effects. 12.3{\%} of respondents reported that industry staff had written first drafts of reports, which they viewed as an acceptable practice for {"}internal{"} documents only. Of greatest concern to respondents were instances of delayed publication or nonpublication of key negative findings (reported by 6.7{\%} and 5.1{\%} of respondents, respectively), and concealment of results (2.2{\%}). Overall, 71 respondents (8.6{\%}) had experienced at least one event that could represent breaches of research integrity. Conclusions: These data indicate a high level of engagement in research between the pharmaceutical industry and medical specialists, including those in private practice. Examples of possibly serious research misconduct were reported by 8.6{\%} of respondents, equivalent to 21{\%} of those with an active research relationship with industry.",
author = "Henry, {David A.} and Kerridge, {Ian H.} and Hill, {Suzanne R.} and McNeill, {Paul M.} and Evan Doran and Newby, {David A.} and Henderson, {Kim M.} and Jane Maguire and Stokes, {Barrie J.} and Macdonald, {Graham J.} and Day, {Richard O.}",
year = "2005",
month = "6",
day = "6",
language = "English",
volume = "182",
pages = "557--560",
journal = "Medical Journal of Australia",
issn = "0025-729X",
publisher = "AUSTRALASIAN MED PUBL CO LTD",
number = "11",

}

Henry, DA, Kerridge, IH, Hill, SR, McNeill, PM, Doran, E, Newby, DA, Henderson, KM, Maguire, J, Stokes, BJ, Macdonald, GJ & Day, RO 2005, 'Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research: A survey of the Australian experience' Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 182, no. 11, pp. 557-560.

Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research : A survey of the Australian experience. / Henry, David A.; Kerridge, Ian H.; Hill, Suzanne R.; McNeill, Paul M.; Doran, Evan; Newby, David A.; Henderson, Kim M.; Maguire, Jane; Stokes, Barrie J.; Macdonald, Graham J.; Day, Richard O.

In: Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 182, No. 11, 06.06.2005, p. 557-560.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research

T2 - A survey of the Australian experience

AU - Henry, David A.

AU - Kerridge, Ian H.

AU - Hill, Suzanne R.

AU - McNeill, Paul M.

AU - Doran, Evan

AU - Newby, David A.

AU - Henderson, Kim M.

AU - Maguire, Jane

AU - Stokes, Barrie J.

AU - Macdonald, Graham J.

AU - Day, Richard O.

PY - 2005/6/6

Y1 - 2005/6/6

N2 - Objectives: To characterise research relationships between medical specialists and the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. Design and setting: Questionnaire survey of medical specialists listed in the Medical Directory of Australia and believed to be in active practice, conducted in 2002 and 2003. Main outcome measures: Details of medical specialists' involvement in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research, and reports of potentially undesirable research outcomes. Results: Of 2120 specialists approached, 823 (39%) responded. Participation in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research was more commonly reported by those in salaried practice (49%) than those in private practice (33%); P < 0.001. 216 reported that industry had made initial contact, compared with 117 who had initiated contact with industry. 14.0% of respondents reported premature termination of industry-sponsored trials, which they considered appropriate when in response to concerns about adverse drug effects. 12.3% of respondents reported that industry staff had written first drafts of reports, which they viewed as an acceptable practice for "internal" documents only. Of greatest concern to respondents were instances of delayed publication or nonpublication of key negative findings (reported by 6.7% and 5.1% of respondents, respectively), and concealment of results (2.2%). Overall, 71 respondents (8.6%) had experienced at least one event that could represent breaches of research integrity. Conclusions: These data indicate a high level of engagement in research between the pharmaceutical industry and medical specialists, including those in private practice. Examples of possibly serious research misconduct were reported by 8.6% of respondents, equivalent to 21% of those with an active research relationship with industry.

AB - Objectives: To characterise research relationships between medical specialists and the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. Design and setting: Questionnaire survey of medical specialists listed in the Medical Directory of Australia and believed to be in active practice, conducted in 2002 and 2003. Main outcome measures: Details of medical specialists' involvement in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research, and reports of potentially undesirable research outcomes. Results: Of 2120 specialists approached, 823 (39%) responded. Participation in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research was more commonly reported by those in salaried practice (49%) than those in private practice (33%); P < 0.001. 216 reported that industry had made initial contact, compared with 117 who had initiated contact with industry. 14.0% of respondents reported premature termination of industry-sponsored trials, which they considered appropriate when in response to concerns about adverse drug effects. 12.3% of respondents reported that industry staff had written first drafts of reports, which they viewed as an acceptable practice for "internal" documents only. Of greatest concern to respondents were instances of delayed publication or nonpublication of key negative findings (reported by 6.7% and 5.1% of respondents, respectively), and concealment of results (2.2%). Overall, 71 respondents (8.6%) had experienced at least one event that could represent breaches of research integrity. Conclusions: These data indicate a high level of engagement in research between the pharmaceutical industry and medical specialists, including those in private practice. Examples of possibly serious research misconduct were reported by 8.6% of respondents, equivalent to 21% of those with an active research relationship with industry.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20444472391&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 182

SP - 557

EP - 560

JO - Medical Journal of Australia

JF - Medical Journal of Australia

SN - 0025-729X

IS - 11

ER -