Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 May;11(2):126-32.

The association between money and opinion in academic emergency medicine

Robert H Birkhahn  1 , Andra Blomkalns, Howard Klausner, Richard Nowak, Ali S Raja, Richard Summers, Jim E Weber, William M Briggs, Alp Arkun, Deborah Diercks
Affiliations

The association between money and opinion in academic emergency medicine

Robert H Birkhahn et al. West J Emerg Med. 2010 May.

Abstract

Objectives: Financial conflicts of interest have come under increasing scrutiny in medicine, but their impact has not been quantified. Our objective was to use the results of a national survey of academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty to determine if an association between money and personal opinion exists.

Methods: We conducted a web-based survey of EM faculty. Opinion questions were analyzed with regard to whether the respondent had either 1) received research grant money or 2) received money from industry as a speaker, consultant, or advisor. Responses were unweighted, and tests of differences in proportions were made using Chi-squared tests, with p<0.05 set for significance.

Results: We received responses from 430 members; 98 (23%) received research grants from industry, while 145 (34%) reported fee-for-service money. Respondents with research money were more likely to be comfortable accepting gifts (40% vs. 29%) and acting as paid consultants (50% vs. 37%). They had a more favorable attitude with regard to societal interactions with industry and felt that industry-sponsored lectures could be fair and unbiased (52% vs. 29%). Faculty with fee-for-service money mirrored those with research money. They were also more likely to believe that industry-sponsored research produces fair and unbiased results (61% vs. 45%) and less likely to believe that honoraria biased speakers (49% vs. 69%).

Conclusion: Accepting money for either service or research identified a distinct population defined by their opinions. Faculty engaged in industry-sponsored research benefitted socially (collaborations), academically (publications), and financially from the relationship.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Drum K. Political Animal. Washington Monthly. 2004 Jul 14;
    1. Chimonas S, Brennan TA, Rothman DJ. Physicians and drug representatives: exploring the dynamics of the relationship. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(2):184–90. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kassirer JP. Professional societies and industry support: what is the quid pro quo? Perspect Biol Med. 2007;50(1):7–17. - PubMed
    1. Blake RL, Jr, Early EK. Patients’ attitudes about gifts to physicians from pharmaceutical companies. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1995;8(6):457–64. - PubMed
    1. Randall T.Kennedy hearings say no more free lunch--or much else--from drug firms JAMA 199126544402. - PubMed