Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence

Ray Moynihan, Lisa Bero, Sue Hill, Minna Johansson, Joel Lexchin, Helen Macdonald, Barbara Mintzes, Cynthia Pearson, Marc A Rodwin, Anna Stavdal, Jacob Stegenga, Brett D Thombs, Hazel Thornton, Per Olav Vandvik, Beate Wieseler, Fiona Godlee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

[Extract]
A global team of influential researchers, clinicians, regulators, and citizen advocates suggest how we can start to build an evidence base for healthcare that is free of commercial influences

We all want to base our healthcare decisions on trustworthy evidence. Yet the landmark 2009 Institute of Medicine report identified widespread financial conflicts of interest across medical research, education, and practice.1 It highlighted that extensive industry influence may be jeopardising “the integrity of scientific investigations, the objectivity of medical education, the quality of patient care, and the public’s trust in medicine.”1

At the same time there’s increasing appreciation across nations and within clinical and scientific communities of the problem of too much medicine. Overtesting, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment divert resources from tackling genuine need, cause harm to health, and threaten health system sustainability. Necessary tests, treatments, and diagnoses are vital, and manufacturers have rights to make profits. But it’s time to ensure the scientific evaluation of tests and treatments, and dissemination of the resulting evidence, are conducted as independently as possible from industries profiting from their use.

Perspectives differ on the financial relationships between industry and health professionals, and debate is ongoing about where to draw the line between valuable collaboration and relationships that don’t serve patients or the public. Some see transparency as the best strategy, while others regard it as necessary but insufficient. We argue that endemic financial entanglement is distorting the production and use of healthcare evidence, causing harm to individuals and waste for health systems. Building on the evidence and practical examples cited below, we propose pathways towards financial independence from industry across healthcare decision making. We hope that our proposals will catalyse and inform development of more detailed recommendations for fundamental reform within research, education, and practice.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberl6576
Number of pages5
JournalBMJ (Clinical research ed.)
Volume367
Issue number8226
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Dec 2019

Fingerprint

Industry
Health
Medical Education
Delivery of Health Care
Conflict of Interest
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.) Health and Medicine Division
Health Care Sector
Quality of Health Care
Patient Education
Biomedical Research
Decision Making
Patient Care
Research Personnel
Medicine
Education
Therapeutics
Research
Medical Overuse

Cite this

Moynihan, R., Bero, L., Hill, S., Johansson, M., Lexchin, J., Macdonald, H., ... Godlee, F. (2019). Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 367(8226), [l6576]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6576
Moynihan, Ray ; Bero, Lisa ; Hill, Sue ; Johansson, Minna ; Lexchin, Joel ; Macdonald, Helen ; Mintzes, Barbara ; Pearson, Cynthia ; Rodwin, Marc A ; Stavdal, Anna ; Stegenga, Jacob ; Thombs, Brett D ; Thornton, Hazel ; Vandvik, Per Olav ; Wieseler, Beate ; Godlee, Fiona. / Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence. In: BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2019 ; Vol. 367, No. 8226.
@article{ca7b063f6cfd48289a6e177fccefa41a,
title = "Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence",
abstract = "[Extract] A global team of influential researchers, clinicians, regulators, and citizen advocates suggest how we can start to build an evidence base for healthcare that is free of commercial influencesWe all want to base our healthcare decisions on trustworthy evidence. Yet the landmark 2009 Institute of Medicine report identified widespread financial conflicts of interest across medical research, education, and practice.1 It highlighted that extensive industry influence may be jeopardising “the integrity of scientific investigations, the objectivity of medical education, the quality of patient care, and the public’s trust in medicine.”1At the same time there’s increasing appreciation across nations and within clinical and scientific communities of the problem of too much medicine. Overtesting, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment divert resources from tackling genuine need, cause harm to health, and threaten health system sustainability. Necessary tests, treatments, and diagnoses are vital, and manufacturers have rights to make profits. But it’s time to ensure the scientific evaluation of tests and treatments, and dissemination of the resulting evidence, are conducted as independently as possible from industries profiting from their use.Perspectives differ on the financial relationships between industry and health professionals, and debate is ongoing about where to draw the line between valuable collaboration and relationships that don’t serve patients or the public. Some see transparency as the best strategy, while others regard it as necessary but insufficient. We argue that endemic financial entanglement is distorting the production and use of healthcare evidence, causing harm to individuals and waste for health systems. Building on the evidence and practical examples cited below, we propose pathways towards financial independence from industry across healthcare decision making. We hope that our proposals will catalyse and inform development of more detailed recommendations for fundamental reform within research, education, and practice.",
author = "Ray Moynihan and Lisa Bero and Sue Hill and Minna Johansson and Joel Lexchin and Helen Macdonald and Barbara Mintzes and Cynthia Pearson and Rodwin, {Marc A} and Anna Stavdal and Jacob Stegenga and Thombs, {Brett D} and Hazel Thornton and Vandvik, {Per Olav} and Beate Wieseler and Fiona Godlee",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.l6576",
language = "English",
volume = "367",
journal = "BMJ (Clinical research ed.)",
issn = "0959-535X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "8226",

}

Moynihan, R, Bero, L, Hill, S, Johansson, M, Lexchin, J, Macdonald, H, Mintzes, B, Pearson, C, Rodwin, MA, Stavdal, A, Stegenga, J, Thombs, BD, Thornton, H, Vandvik, PO, Wieseler, B & Godlee, F 2019, 'Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence', BMJ (Clinical research ed.), vol. 367, no. 8226, l6576. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6576

Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence. / Moynihan, Ray; Bero, Lisa; Hill, Sue; Johansson, Minna; Lexchin, Joel; Macdonald, Helen; Mintzes, Barbara; Pearson, Cynthia; Rodwin, Marc A; Stavdal, Anna; Stegenga, Jacob; Thombs, Brett D; Thornton, Hazel; Vandvik, Per Olav; Wieseler, Beate; Godlee, Fiona.

In: BMJ (Clinical research ed.), Vol. 367, No. 8226, l6576, 03.12.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pathways to independence: towards producing and using trustworthy evidence

AU - Moynihan, Ray

AU - Bero, Lisa

AU - Hill, Sue

AU - Johansson, Minna

AU - Lexchin, Joel

AU - Macdonald, Helen

AU - Mintzes, Barbara

AU - Pearson, Cynthia

AU - Rodwin, Marc A

AU - Stavdal, Anna

AU - Stegenga, Jacob

AU - Thombs, Brett D

AU - Thornton, Hazel

AU - Vandvik, Per Olav

AU - Wieseler, Beate

AU - Godlee, Fiona

PY - 2019/12/3

Y1 - 2019/12/3

N2 - [Extract] A global team of influential researchers, clinicians, regulators, and citizen advocates suggest how we can start to build an evidence base for healthcare that is free of commercial influencesWe all want to base our healthcare decisions on trustworthy evidence. Yet the landmark 2009 Institute of Medicine report identified widespread financial conflicts of interest across medical research, education, and practice.1 It highlighted that extensive industry influence may be jeopardising “the integrity of scientific investigations, the objectivity of medical education, the quality of patient care, and the public’s trust in medicine.”1At the same time there’s increasing appreciation across nations and within clinical and scientific communities of the problem of too much medicine. Overtesting, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment divert resources from tackling genuine need, cause harm to health, and threaten health system sustainability. Necessary tests, treatments, and diagnoses are vital, and manufacturers have rights to make profits. But it’s time to ensure the scientific evaluation of tests and treatments, and dissemination of the resulting evidence, are conducted as independently as possible from industries profiting from their use.Perspectives differ on the financial relationships between industry and health professionals, and debate is ongoing about where to draw the line between valuable collaboration and relationships that don’t serve patients or the public. Some see transparency as the best strategy, while others regard it as necessary but insufficient. We argue that endemic financial entanglement is distorting the production and use of healthcare evidence, causing harm to individuals and waste for health systems. Building on the evidence and practical examples cited below, we propose pathways towards financial independence from industry across healthcare decision making. We hope that our proposals will catalyse and inform development of more detailed recommendations for fundamental reform within research, education, and practice.

AB - [Extract] A global team of influential researchers, clinicians, regulators, and citizen advocates suggest how we can start to build an evidence base for healthcare that is free of commercial influencesWe all want to base our healthcare decisions on trustworthy evidence. Yet the landmark 2009 Institute of Medicine report identified widespread financial conflicts of interest across medical research, education, and practice.1 It highlighted that extensive industry influence may be jeopardising “the integrity of scientific investigations, the objectivity of medical education, the quality of patient care, and the public’s trust in medicine.”1At the same time there’s increasing appreciation across nations and within clinical and scientific communities of the problem of too much medicine. Overtesting, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment divert resources from tackling genuine need, cause harm to health, and threaten health system sustainability. Necessary tests, treatments, and diagnoses are vital, and manufacturers have rights to make profits. But it’s time to ensure the scientific evaluation of tests and treatments, and dissemination of the resulting evidence, are conducted as independently as possible from industries profiting from their use.Perspectives differ on the financial relationships between industry and health professionals, and debate is ongoing about where to draw the line between valuable collaboration and relationships that don’t serve patients or the public. Some see transparency as the best strategy, while others regard it as necessary but insufficient. We argue that endemic financial entanglement is distorting the production and use of healthcare evidence, causing harm to individuals and waste for health systems. Building on the evidence and practical examples cited below, we propose pathways towards financial independence from industry across healthcare decision making. We hope that our proposals will catalyse and inform development of more detailed recommendations for fundamental reform within research, education, and practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075950774&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.l6576

DO - 10.1136/bmj.l6576

M3 - Article

VL - 367

JO - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

JF - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

SN - 0959-535X

IS - 8226

M1 - l6576

ER -