Ties that bind: Multiple relationships between clinical researchers and the pharmaceutical industry

David Henry, Evan Doran, Ian Kerridge, Suzanne Hill, Paul M. McNeill, Richard Day

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: It is believed that pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of clinical research leads to the development of multiple ties between clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry. To quantify this relationship we conducted a survey of medical specialists listed in the Medical Directory of Australia in 2002 and 2003. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed that elicited information about all aspects of research relationships between clinicians and pharmaceutical companies. The odds of reporting multiple additional ties (financial and professional) with pharmaceutical companies by clinicians who had an active research relationship were compared with those who did not. All clinicians who returned a completed questionnaire about their research activities were included in the study. Results: A questionnaire was mailed to 2120 medical specialists; 823 (39%) responded. Of these, 338 (41%) reported involvement in industry-sponsored research in the previous year. They were more likely than others to have been offered industry-sponsored items or activities valued at more than AU $500 (>US $382; odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-4.7) and support for attending international conferences (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.9-7.4). The strongest associations were seen for acting as a paid consultant to industry (OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 3.9 20.4) and for membership on advisory boards (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 5.1-9.6). There was a strong relationship between research collaboration and accumulation of industry ties. For 1 additional tie the OR was 2.2 (95% CI, 1.2-3.8) and rose to 6.3 (95% CI, 3.5-11.1) with 3 ties and 41.8 (95% CI, 14.5-143.4) with 6 or more ties. Conclusions: Medical specialists who have research relationships with the pharmaceutical industry are much more likely to have multiple additional ties than those who do not have research relationships. Institutional review should discourage clinical researchers from developing multiple ties.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2493-2496
Number of pages4
JournalArchives of Internal Medicine
Volume165
Issue number21
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Nov 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Drug Industry
Research Personnel
Confidence Intervals
Research
Odds Ratio
Industry
Directories
Consultants
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

Henry, David ; Doran, Evan ; Kerridge, Ian ; Hill, Suzanne ; McNeill, Paul M. ; Day, Richard. / Ties that bind : Multiple relationships between clinical researchers and the pharmaceutical industry. In: Archives of Internal Medicine. 2005 ; Vol. 165, No. 21. pp. 2493-2496.
@article{7d3f1938caf64778976267d66f4836ba,
title = "Ties that bind: Multiple relationships between clinical researchers and the pharmaceutical industry",
abstract = "Background: It is believed that pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of clinical research leads to the development of multiple ties between clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry. To quantify this relationship we conducted a survey of medical specialists listed in the Medical Directory of Australia in 2002 and 2003. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed that elicited information about all aspects of research relationships between clinicians and pharmaceutical companies. The odds of reporting multiple additional ties (financial and professional) with pharmaceutical companies by clinicians who had an active research relationship were compared with those who did not. All clinicians who returned a completed questionnaire about their research activities were included in the study. Results: A questionnaire was mailed to 2120 medical specialists; 823 (39{\%}) responded. Of these, 338 (41{\%}) reported involvement in industry-sponsored research in the previous year. They were more likely than others to have been offered industry-sponsored items or activities valued at more than AU $500 (>US $382; odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 2.6-4.7) and support for attending international conferences (OR, 5.4; 95{\%} CI, 3.9-7.4). The strongest associations were seen for acting as a paid consultant to industry (OR, 9.0; 95{\%} CI, 3.9 20.4) and for membership on advisory boards (OR, 6.9; 95{\%} CI, 5.1-9.6). There was a strong relationship between research collaboration and accumulation of industry ties. For 1 additional tie the OR was 2.2 (95{\%} CI, 1.2-3.8) and rose to 6.3 (95{\%} CI, 3.5-11.1) with 3 ties and 41.8 (95{\%} CI, 14.5-143.4) with 6 or more ties. Conclusions: Medical specialists who have research relationships with the pharmaceutical industry are much more likely to have multiple additional ties than those who do not have research relationships. Institutional review should discourage clinical researchers from developing multiple ties.",
author = "David Henry and Evan Doran and Ian Kerridge and Suzanne Hill and McNeill, {Paul M.} and Richard Day",
year = "2005",
month = "11",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1001/archinte.165.21.2493",
language = "English",
volume = "165",
pages = "2493--2496",
journal = "Archives of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-9926",
publisher = "AMER MEDICAL ASSOC",
number = "21",

}

Ties that bind : Multiple relationships between clinical researchers and the pharmaceutical industry. / Henry, David; Doran, Evan; Kerridge, Ian; Hill, Suzanne; McNeill, Paul M.; Day, Richard.

In: Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 165, No. 21, 28.11.2005, p. 2493-2496.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ties that bind

T2 - Multiple relationships between clinical researchers and the pharmaceutical industry

AU - Henry, David

AU - Doran, Evan

AU - Kerridge, Ian

AU - Hill, Suzanne

AU - McNeill, Paul M.

AU - Day, Richard

PY - 2005/11/28

Y1 - 2005/11/28

N2 - Background: It is believed that pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of clinical research leads to the development of multiple ties between clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry. To quantify this relationship we conducted a survey of medical specialists listed in the Medical Directory of Australia in 2002 and 2003. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed that elicited information about all aspects of research relationships between clinicians and pharmaceutical companies. The odds of reporting multiple additional ties (financial and professional) with pharmaceutical companies by clinicians who had an active research relationship were compared with those who did not. All clinicians who returned a completed questionnaire about their research activities were included in the study. Results: A questionnaire was mailed to 2120 medical specialists; 823 (39%) responded. Of these, 338 (41%) reported involvement in industry-sponsored research in the previous year. They were more likely than others to have been offered industry-sponsored items or activities valued at more than AU $500 (>US $382; odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-4.7) and support for attending international conferences (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.9-7.4). The strongest associations were seen for acting as a paid consultant to industry (OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 3.9 20.4) and for membership on advisory boards (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 5.1-9.6). There was a strong relationship between research collaboration and accumulation of industry ties. For 1 additional tie the OR was 2.2 (95% CI, 1.2-3.8) and rose to 6.3 (95% CI, 3.5-11.1) with 3 ties and 41.8 (95% CI, 14.5-143.4) with 6 or more ties. Conclusions: Medical specialists who have research relationships with the pharmaceutical industry are much more likely to have multiple additional ties than those who do not have research relationships. Institutional review should discourage clinical researchers from developing multiple ties.

AB - Background: It is believed that pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of clinical research leads to the development of multiple ties between clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry. To quantify this relationship we conducted a survey of medical specialists listed in the Medical Directory of Australia in 2002 and 2003. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed that elicited information about all aspects of research relationships between clinicians and pharmaceutical companies. The odds of reporting multiple additional ties (financial and professional) with pharmaceutical companies by clinicians who had an active research relationship were compared with those who did not. All clinicians who returned a completed questionnaire about their research activities were included in the study. Results: A questionnaire was mailed to 2120 medical specialists; 823 (39%) responded. Of these, 338 (41%) reported involvement in industry-sponsored research in the previous year. They were more likely than others to have been offered industry-sponsored items or activities valued at more than AU $500 (>US $382; odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-4.7) and support for attending international conferences (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.9-7.4). The strongest associations were seen for acting as a paid consultant to industry (OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 3.9 20.4) and for membership on advisory boards (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 5.1-9.6). There was a strong relationship between research collaboration and accumulation of industry ties. For 1 additional tie the OR was 2.2 (95% CI, 1.2-3.8) and rose to 6.3 (95% CI, 3.5-11.1) with 3 ties and 41.8 (95% CI, 14.5-143.4) with 6 or more ties. Conclusions: Medical specialists who have research relationships with the pharmaceutical industry are much more likely to have multiple additional ties than those who do not have research relationships. Institutional review should discourage clinical researchers from developing multiple ties.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=28344445836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archinte.165.21.2493

DO - 10.1001/archinte.165.21.2493

M3 - Article

VL - 165

SP - 2493

EP - 2496

JO - Archives of Internal Medicine

JF - Archives of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-9926

IS - 21

ER -