A Content Analysis of Self-Reported Financial Relationships in Biomedical Research
- PMID: 36576202
- PMCID: PMC10182247
- DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2160509
A Content Analysis of Self-Reported Financial Relationships in Biomedical Research
Abstract
Introduction: Financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) present well documented risks to the integrity of biomedical research. However, few studies differentiate among fCOI types in their analyses, and those that do tend to use preexisting taxonomies for fCOI identification. Research on fCOI would benefit from an empirically-derived taxonomy of self-reported fCOI and data on fCOI type and payor prevalence.
Methods: We conducted a content analysis of 6,165 individual self-reported relationships from COI statements distributed across 378 articles indexed with PubMed. Two coders used an iterative coding process to identify and classify individual fCOI types and payors. Inter-rater reliability was κ = 0.935 for fCOI type and κ = 0.884 for payor identification.
Results: Our analysis identified 21 fCOI types, 9 of which occurred at prevalences greater than 1%. These included research funding (24.8%), speaking fees (20.8%), consulting fees (18.8%), advisory relationships (11%), industry employment (7.6%), unspecified fees (4.8%), travel fees (3.2%), stock holdings (3.1%), and patent ownership (1%). Reported fCOI were held with 1,077 unique payors, 22 of which were present in more than 1% of financial relationships. The ten most common payors included Pfizer (4%), Novartis (3.9%), MSD (3.8%), Bristol Myers Squibb (3.2%), AstraZeneca (3.1%), GSK (3%), Boehringer Ingelheim (2.9%), Roche (2.8%), Eli LIlly (2.5%), and AbbVie (2.4%).
Conclusions: These results provide novel multi-domain prevalence data on self-reported fCOI and payors in biomedical research. As such, they have the potential to catalyze future research that can assess the differential effects of various types of fCOI. Specifically, the data suggest that comparative analyses of the effects of different fCOI types are needed and that special attention should be paid to the diversity of payor types for research relationships.
Keywords: Conflict of interest; drug industry; ethics; health policy; research.
Conflict of interest statement
Disclosure statement
There are no conflicts of interest to report.
Figures
References
-
- Ahmer Syed, Arya Pradeep, Anderson Duncan, and Faruqui Rafey. 2005. “Conflict of Interest in Psychiatry.” Psychiatric Bulletin 29 (8): 302–4. 10.1192/pb.29.8.302. - DOI
-
- Ahn Rosa, Woodbridge Alexandra, Abraham Ann, Saba Susan, Korenstein Deborah, Madden Erin, Boscardin W. John, and Keyhani Salomeh. 2017. “Financial Ties of Principal Investigators and Randomized Controlled Trial Outcomes: Cross Sectional Study.” BMJ 356 (January): i6770. 10.1136/bmj.i6770. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Bighelli Irene, Leucht Claudia, Huhn Maximilian, Reitmeir Cornelia, Schwermann Felicitas, Wallis Sofia, Davis John M., and Leucht Stefan. 2020. “Are Randomized Controlled Trials on Pharmacotherapy and Psychotherapy for Positive Symptoms of Schizophrenia Comparable? A Systematic Review of Patient and Study Characteristics.” Schizophrenia Bulletin 46 (3): 496–504. 10.1093/schbul/sbz090. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials