Special Article
Patients' Views on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Cancer Research Trials
N Engl J Med 2006; 355:2330-2337November 30, 2006
- Abstract
Background
Financial ties between researchers or medical centers and companies whose drugs are being tested have come under increasing scrutiny.
Methods
We conducted in-person interviews with 253 patients in cancer-research trials (a 93% response rate) at five U.S. medical centers to determine their attitudes regarding potential financial conflicts of interest among researchers and medical centers.
Results
More than 90% of patients expressed little or no worry about financial ties that researchers or institutions might have with drug companies. Most patients said they would have enrolled in the trial even if the drug company had paid the researcher for speaking (82% of those interviewed) or consulting (75%) or if the researcher had received royalty payments (70%) or owned stock in the company (76%). Similarly, most patients would have enrolled in the trial if their cancer center had owned stock in the drug company (77%) or received royalty payments from the company (79%). Most patients believed it was ethical for researchers to receive speaking fees (81%) or consulting fees (82%) from the company. However, a substantial minority of patients wanted disclosure of the oversight system for researchers (40%) and of researchers' financial interests (31%); 17% thought no disclosure to patients was necessary.
Conclusions
Most patients in cancer-research trials were not worried about financial ties between researchers or medical centers and drug companies and would still have enrolled in the trial if they had known about such financial ties. A substantial minority wanted to be informed about the oversight system to protect against financial conflicts of interest and about researchers' financial interests.
Media in This Article
Table 1
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Study Patients.Table 2
Concern about Financial Ties between Researchers or Cancer Centers and Drug Companies.Article Activity
- Article
Financial conflicts of interest in clinical research are worrisome for at least two important reasons: such conflicts may increase the risk to patients, and they may undermine the scientific integrity of the research. To address this problem, the World Medical Association (in the Declaration of Helsinki), the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and many commentators have called for full disclosure of financial interests to patients who may enroll in research trials.1-6 Advocates argue that disclosure allows patients to assess whether the financial interests might influence their willingness to enroll. Disclosure to patients might also serve to maintain public trust in research and discourage the development of financial ties between researchers or their institutions and drug companies.2-7
Conversely, critics argue that such disclosure to patients who are being invited to participate in research trials passes the onus of accountability to those who have the least power and the fewest options.8-15 In addition, patients are frequently overwhelmed by information in consent documents and may not be well positioned to assess the effect of the disclosed information on their own interests.12-17 Finally, disclosure to patients cannot ensure scientific integrity.
Little is known about the views of patients in research trials regarding potential conflicts of interest, the disclosure of such conflicts, and other safeguards. In two previous surveys, both of which had low rates of response, investigators neither interviewed patients in research trials nor asked about institutional conflicts of interest.18,19 A recent study involving focus groups showed that an interest in and understanding of conflicts of interest were variable; some respondents suggested that if they were “sicker,” they might be less concerned about financial conflicts of interest.20 The respondents in these studies were not patients enrolled in research trials; hence, they may not have appreciated the burdens of understanding such information and applying it to actual enrollment decisions.
We interviewed patients in cancer trials on the hypothesis that most patients would be concerned about financial ties between researchers or institutions and drug companies, that they would favor the prohibition of such ties, and that they would want disclosure of any financial interests. We recognized that the views of patients enrolled in cancer trials might differ from those of patients participating in other types of research studies or those who have declined to participate in research. Nevertheless, cancer trials represent a substantial fraction of all clinical research and have extensive industry involvement. More important, patients with cancer face a serious, life-threatening disease, making them among the most vulnerable to any adverse effects of financial conflicts of interest.
Methods
Study Patients
Between November 2004 and November 2005, interviewers surveyed patients with cancer who were enrolled in clinical trials at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland; the Dana–Farber Cancer Institute in Boston; the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle; the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Denver; and the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. English-speaking patients who were at least 18 years of age were eligible to participate in the study if they were involved in any cycle of a cancer trial; no patient was paid to participate. Of 272 patients who were approached, 253 agreed to be interviewed (a 93% response rate).
Survey Design
Researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Research Triangle Institute designed the survey with the use of a five-step process. First, a literature search identified concerns about conflicts of interest, proposals about disclosure policies, and other safeguards. Second, questions from a previous survey were examined.18 Third, questions were developed about researchers' stock ownership and receipt of speaking fees, consulting fees, and patent royalty payments, as well as institutional stock ownership, per capita payments for patients in research trials, and patent royalty payments. Fourth, questions on proposed safeguards were developed. As a final step, questions were adapted from trust scales developed at Wake Forest University School of Medicine,21-24 the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire,25 and the mental health component of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).26 Performance status was also assessed according to guidelines of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (with a score of 0 indicating normal performance status, 1 mildly symptomatic, 2 symptomatic but in bed less than half the day, 3 symptomatic and in bed more than half the day, and 4 in bed the whole day).27 A draft survey instrument was subjected to two rounds of cognitive interviews and, after revisions, behavioral testing to ensure comprehensibility and clarity.
The final instrument contained 45 questions in six domains: awareness of and concern about conflicts of interest, the effect of financial conflicts of interest on study participation, attitudes about policies and practices regarding research conflicts of interest, attitudes about disclosure of conflicts of interest, trust, and sociodemographic and medical characteristics. To determine whether asking about financial ties in the survey increased the concern of patients, the identical questions about concern were repeated at the end of the survey. (The complete survey appears in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org.)
Because the phrase “conflict of interest” has a negative connotation, interviewers used the descriptive and less judgmental term “financial ties” (e.g., “Do you think the oversight system for regulating the financial ties of [the cancer center] and its researchers . . .”). Similarly, interviewers used descriptive phrases to convey types of financial ties. Patients were told to identify their doctor as “the doctor you see most often when you come to [the cancer center].”
Survey Administration
Interviewers, who included nurses and other health care professionals, administered the survey in person. The interviewers had been trained in nondirective interviewing techniques by personnel at the Research Triangle Institute and were not affiliated with the research trials in which the patients were enrolled. Patients were already attending the medical center for another appointment. The mean duration of the interview was 30 minutes (median, 29 minutes). The institutional review board at each participating cancer center approved the protocol, consent document, and survey instrument. All patients gave written informed consent.
Statistical Analysis
The survey results are summarized and presented according to the proportion of patients who had a response to each question. Differences between responses for subgroups, as defined by the characteristics of patients, were calculated by either Fisher's exact test or the Kruskal–Wallis test. Odds ratios were estimated, and their 95% confidence intervals calculated.
Results
Characteristics of the Patients
Of the 253 patients, 56% were men and 92% were white (Table 1Table 1
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Study Patients.). Approximately 25% of the patients were under 50 years of age, 59% were between 50 and 69 years of age, and 16% were 70 years of age or older. The majority of patients had health insurance, had attended college, and had an annual income of $50,000 or more.Patients had a variety of cancers; no single diagnosis accounted for more than 12% of patients, and 21% of patients had various types of hematologic cancers. The mean duration of disease was 4 years (median, 2 years). Before enrolling in their cancer study, 35% of patients had not received any chemotherapy, biotherapy, or radiotherapy. Overall, 16% were just starting the trial, 23% had received one cycle of the experimental intervention, 20% had received two or three cycles, and the remaining 41% had received four or more cycles. Most of the patients (57%) had a normal level of physical activity, 30% had minor limitations in activity (an ECOG score of 1 for performance status), and 13% were in bed less than half of the day (an ECOG score of 2). About 25% of the patients had moderate pain or a great deal of pain, but only 5% had depression. About half of the patients had considered treatment options other than the experimental intervention in the current trial, 10% had “slightly considered” other options, and 35% had not considered any other option. More than 96% agreed or strongly agreed that they had complete trust in their doctor and in the cancer center.
Concern about Financial Interest
Only 7% of the patients had heard or read “a lot about financial ties related to clinical studies,” 16% had heard a moderate amount, and 77% had heard little or nothing. Only two patients (<1%) were very worried that the doctor running their study might have “financial ties with the company that makes the drug used in the study,” 17% were somewhat or “a little” worried, and 80% were not worried at all (Table 2Table 2
Concern about Financial Ties between Researchers or Cancer Centers and Drug Companies.). Of the patients who were not worried, 48% had not previously thought about such financial ties, 36% were confident that their doctor or their medical care would not be influenced by such financial ties, and 16% had a variety of other responses. Similarly, only two patients (<1%) were very worried about financial ties between their cancer center and the drug company, 28% were somewhat or “a little” worried, 70% were not at all worried, and 9% had a variety of other responses (Table 2). Of those who were not worried, 49% had not previously thought about such financial ties, 23% thought such ties would not affect their medical care, and 19% reported having trust in the oversight system in place.Financial Interests and Research Participation
Overall, 82% of patients would still have participated in the trial if the researcher had received speaking fees from the company that made the drug in the trial, and a large majority would still have participated if the researcher had received consulting fees (75%), owned stock (76%), or received royalty payments (70%) (Table 3Table 3
Patients' Views about Effects of Financial Ties between Researchers or Cancer Centers and Drug Companies on Participation in the Current Clinical Trial.). Similarly, 77% would have enrolled in the trial if their cancer center had held stock in the company whose drug was being evaluated in their study, 79% would have participated if the institution received patent royalty payments, and 83% would have participated if the institution had received per capita payments for enrolling patients. Less than 15% of patients reported that knowledge of a financial tie would have kept them from participating in the cancer trial. More than a third of the patients (39%) would have participated in the trial despite financial ties because they believed either that they had no alternative or that such participation was the way to be treated by the best oncologist. Another 20% thought the cancer center was overseeing the financial ties, and 13% believed the financial interest would not influence their care (data not shown).Overall, 64% of patients thought it was acceptable for researchers to own stock in the company whose drug was being evaluated in the trial; a larger majority of the patients thought it was acceptable for researchers to receive consulting fees (82%), speaking fees (81%), and patent royalty payments (70%) (Table 4Table 4
Patients' Views on the Types of Financial Ties between Researchers or Cancer Centers and Drug Companies That Should Be Permitted.). Similarly, a majority thought it was acceptable for the cancer center to “own stock in the drug company whose drug is being used” (57%), to accept patent royalty payments (72%), and to receive per capita payments for enrollment in such trials (78%).Safeguards against Conflicts of Interest
Of the patients surveyed, 62% believed there was an oversight system in place to monitor financial ties. However, when asked, most could not specify a system but suggested that there “must be a process during study implementation,” such as an “independent oversight committee to screen M.D.'s credentials and relationship with drug companies.” One third of the patients did not know whether there was such an oversight system.
When asked about the disclosure of financial ties, 31% of the patients thought researchers should be required to tell their patients about such ties regardless of the monetary value (Table 5Table 5
Disclosure of Financial Ties between Researchers or Cancer Centers and Drug Companies.). Conversely, 40% thought researchers should tell patients only about the oversight system, and 26% thought disclosure to patients either should not be required or should be required only if the financial ties exceeded a certain amount. Similar results were reported for institutions' financial ties (Table 5).At the end of the survey, only one patient (<1%) was very worried about financial ties between doctors or cancer centers and drug companies, 5% were somewhat worried, and 93% were a little worried or not worried at all (Table 2).
Predictors of Attitudes and Preferences
There was no consistent association among such factors as age, sex, race, religion, income, type of cancer, phase of study, or cancer center and a concern about financial interests, a willingness to enroll in research studies with conflicts of interest, or views of what were appropriate financial ties. Only educational level was consistently associated with patients' attitudes. Patients with a higher level of education were significantly more likely to be worried about the cancer center's financial interests in companies whose drugs were under evaluation (12% of those with a high school education, 27% of those who had either attended or graduated from college, and 47% of those who had graduate training; P<0.001). A similar trend was found for researchers' financial ties with drug companies (8% of patients with a high school education were concerned, 17% of those who had either attended or graduated from college, and 31% of those with graduate training; P=0.001). Finally, patients with more education were significantly less likely to find it acceptable that cancer centers would own stock in companies whose drugs were being researched at the institution (67% of those with a high school education, 65% of those who had either attended or graduated from college, and 44% of those with graduate training; P=0.008). There was no significant association between having a higher level of education and having heard or read about financial conflicts of interest (data not shown).
Discussion
In this study, most patients who were enrolled in trials at five cancer centers had few concerns about financial ties between their physicians or their cancer centers and the companies whose drugs were being tested. A large majority of patients viewed such financial ties as permissible, would not have changed their decision to participate in the study even if they had known about the financial ties, and were confident about the existence of an oversight system.
Despite substantial media coverage of financial conflicts of interest during the survey period, more than 75% of patients had not heard or read about such financial ties. Furthermore, most of the patients were not concerned about such potential conflicts. This attitude was not an indication that these patients were naive, unsophisticated, or uneducated. Actually, they were socioeconomically privileged members of American society who should have been knowledgeable regarding financial interests. Only among patients with graduate training were the majority worried about or wanted to prohibit such financial ties.
At least among patients in cancer trials, financial links between researchers or cancer centers and drug companies were not particularly salient or worrisome. Why not? For these patients with cancer, concerns about health and getting the “best” care seemed to predominate. More than 70% of the patients would still have enrolled in their trial even if they had known about any financial ties. In addition, it is probably psychologically essential for such patients to trust that their doctors and cancer centers would not let financial ties compromise their medical care.
Unlike the findings in previous studies,18-20 our data reflect the views of patients who were actually enrolled in trials. Substantiation of these findings comes from focus groups conducted by senior NIH officials, in which patients who did not have cancer and patient advocates indicated that they were minimally concerned about researchers' financial conflicts of interest. They were more concerned about making progress in curing major diseases and thought collaboration between academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies was necessary for making such progress.28
Almost half of the patients in our study did not seriously consider any treatment options other than the experimental therapy in their research trial, and more than 70% reported that disclosure of financial ties would not have changed their decision to participate. For these patients, the desire to receive what they viewed as the best treatment option may have outweighed worries about financial ties. Although 13 to 34% of the patients thought various financial ties should be prohibited, less than 15% would not have enrolled in their trial if they had known about the ties. This discrepancy merits additional exploration, but it suggests that for seriously ill patients, disclosure is unlikely to provide protection against the potential harm of financial interests.
Most patients thought that the common financial ties between researchers or cancer centers and drug companies should be permitted. They had a more favorable view of researchers' receipt of consulting fees than they did of researchers' ownership of stock. Similarly, institutional receipt of per capita payments was viewed more favorably than was stock ownership. The reasons for these views are unclear, but patients may feel that some types of ties, such as consulting, are necessary to facilitate the conduct of research and to make progress against diseases.20,28,29
There was wide variation in the views of patients about what should be disclosed and to whom. Seventeen percent thought there was no need for any type of disclosure, 9% preferred disclosure of any financial ties over a particular monetary value, 40% preferred disclosure of the oversight system, and 31% wanted disclosure of all financial ties. How to handle the minority of patients who want disclosure of all financial interests is challenging.8,13-15 Some observers have argued that if 30% of patients in research trials want disclosure, then there should be mandatory disclosure in consent documents. Others argue that disclosure is time-consuming and potentially confusing and worrisome and is of little concern to the majority of patients. A majority of patients believed that an oversight system was in place to monitor and manage potential conflicts of interest, even though most of them could not specify what that system was. The establishment and disclosure of such oversight boards would provide an opportunity to preserve the confidence of patients without the burden of presenting detailed financial information.
Our study had several limitations. First, data from patients who were already enrolled in cancer trials might not be relevant for patients with other illnesses, patients considering participation in such trials, or patients who have refused to participate in research. Second, typical of patients in cancer research trials, the patients in our study tended to be well educated, financially secure, older, and white.30 Their views might not apply to other populations, such as various minority groups, who may be more suspicious of research and financial ties.31 However, this hypothesis was not borne out by the patients from minority groups who participated in our study. Furthermore, since more educated people seem to be less tolerant of financial conflicts of interest, the bias in our study should have been toward an overestimation of concern about financial ties, rather than an underestimation of such concern.
Supported by the National Institute of Health's Department of Clinical Bioethics and Evaluation Branch, Division of Evaluation and Systematic Assessments, Office of the Director.
The ideas and opinions expressed are the authors' views, and do not represent any official position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, the Public Health Service, or the Department of Health and Human Services.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We thank the investigators and interviewers at the National Cancer Institute, the Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, the University of Colorado Cancer Center, and the Yale–New Haven Medical Center for their recruitment and interviewing of patients; and Frank Miller and David Wendler for their critical reviews of this article.
Source Information
From the Department of Clinical Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (L.A.H., M.A., E.J.E.); the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor (L.A.H.); the Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, Boston (S.J.); Yale Cancer Center and the Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT (C.P.G.); and the Statistics Collaborative, Washington, DC (J.V.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Emanuel at the Department of Clinical Bioethics, Bldg. 10, Rm. 1C118, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, or at eemanuel@nih.gov.
- References
References
1
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. (Accessed November 13, 2006, at http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm.)
2
Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. Protecting subjects: preserving trust, promoting progress. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges, December 2001.
3
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. Chicago: American Medical Association, December 2000.
4
Department of Health and Human Services 5
Task Force on Research Accountability. Report on individual and institutional financial conflict of interest. Washington, DC: Association of American Universities, October 2001.
6
Weinfurt KP ,Dinan MA ,Allsbrook JS , et al. Policies of academic medical centers for disclosing financial conflicts of interest to potential research participants. Acad Med 2006;81:113-118
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Brody BA ,Anderson C ,McCrary SV ,McCullough L ,Morgan R ,Wray N . Expanding disclosure of conflicts of interest: the views of stakeholders. IRB 2003;25:1-8
CrossRef | Medline8
Foster RS . Conflicts of interest: recognition, disclosure, and management. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:505-517
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Jellinek MS ,Levine RJ . IRBs and pharmaceutical company funding of research. IRB 1982;4:9-10
CrossRef | Medline10
Roizen R . Why I oppose drug company payment of physician/investigators on a per patient/subject basis. IRB 1988;10:9-10
CrossRef | Medline11
Spiro HM . Mammon and medicine: the rewards of clinical trials. JAMA 1986;255:1174-1175
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Forster HP ,Emanuel E ,Grady C . The 2000 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: a step forward or more confusion? Lancet 2001;358:1449-1453
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Rodwin MA . Physicians' conflicts of interest: the limitations of disclosure. N Engl J Med 1989;321:1405-1408
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline14
Rothman KJ . Conflict of interest: the new McCarthyism in science. JAMA 1993;269:2782-2784
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Thompson DF . Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 1993;329:573-576
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline16
Remarks of Marcia Angell, M.D. In: HHS Conference on Human Subject Protection and Financial Conflicts of Interest, Bethesda, MD, August 16, 2000.
17
Ubel PA ,Loewenstein G . The role of decision analysis in informed consent: choosing between intuition and systematicity. Soc Sci Med 1997;44:647-656
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Kim SY ,Millard RW ,Nisbet P ,Cox C ,Caine ED . Potential research participants' views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interest. J Med Ethics 2004;30:73-79
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
La Puma J ,Stocking CB ,Rhoades WD , et al. Financial ties as part of informed consent to postmarketing research: attitudes of American doctors and patients. BMJ 1995;310:1660-1663[Erratum, BMJ 1995; 311:373.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Weinfurt KP ,Friedman JY ,Allsbrook JS ,Dinan MA ,Hall MA ,Sugarman J . Views of potential research participants on financial conflicts of interest: barriers and opportunities for effective disclosure. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:901-906
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Balkrishnan R ,Dugan E ,Camacho FT ,Hall MA . Trust and satisfaction with physicians, insurers, and the medical profession. Med Care 2003;41:1058-1064
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Hall MA ,Camacho F ,Dugan E ,Balkrishnan R . Trust in the medical profession: conceptual and measurement issues. Health Serv Res 2002;37:1419-1439
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Hall MA ,Dugan E ,Zheng B ,Mishra AK . Trust in physicians and medical institutions: what is it, can it be measured, and does it matter? Milbank Q 2001;79:613-639
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Hall MA ,Zheng B ,Dugan E , et al. Measuring patients' trust in their primary care providers. Med Care Res Rev 2002;59:293-318[Erratum, Med Care Res Rev 2003;60:118.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Daut RL ,Cleeland CS ,Flanery RC . Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain 1983;17:197-210
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Berwick DM ,Murphy JM ,Goldman PA ,Ware JE Jr ,Barsky AJ ,Weinstein MC . Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care 1991;29:169-176
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Zubrod CG ,Schneiderman M ,Frei E , et al. Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and trimethylene thiophosphoramide. J Chronic Dis 1960;11:7-33
CrossRef28
National Institute of Mental Health. Summary of the Alliance for Research Progress meeting, Bethesda, MD, July 19, 2004. (Accessed November 2, 2006, at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/outreach/alliancereport2004.pdf.)
29
Brennan TA ,Rothman DJ ,Blank L , et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA 2006;295:429-433
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Horstmann E, Grady C, McCabe M, Emanuel EJ. Phase I participants as a vulnerable population. In: 2004 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition) 2004;22:Suppl 14S:6059. (Accessed November 13, 2006, at http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&index=y&abstractID=1662.)
31
Wendler D ,Kington R ,Madans J , et al. Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research? PLoS Med 2006;3:e19-e19
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (25)
Citing Articles
1
Julie Ann Freischlag. (2011) Academic medical centers write their own rules. Journal of Vascular Surgery 54:3, 19S-21S
CrossRef2
Kevin C. Chung, Sandra V. Kotsis, Richard A. Berger, Gordon Van Ummersen. (2011) The Relationship Between Industry and Surgery. The Journal of Hand Surgery 36:8, 1352-1359
CrossRef3
George Loewenstein, Daylian M Cain, Sunita Sah. (2011) The Limits of Transparency: Pitfalls and Potential of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest. American Economic Review 101:3, 423-428
CrossRef4
Rael D. Strous. (2011) Ethical considerations in clinical training, care and research in psychopharmacology. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 14:03, 413-424
CrossRef5
Thomas Agoritsas, Marie Deom, Thomas V. Perneger. (2011) Study design attributes influenced patients' willingness to participate in clinical research: a randomized vignette-based study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64:1, 107-115
CrossRef6
Amitabh Chandra, David Cutler, Zirui Song. 2011. Who Ordered That? The Economics of Treatment Choices in Medical Care. , 397-432.
CrossRef7
Marcia M. Boumil, Harris Berman. (2010) Transparency in Research and its Effect on the Perception of Research Integrity. JONA's Healthcare Law, Ethics, and Regulation 12:3, 64-68
CrossRef8
Kevin P. Weinfurt, Mark A. Hall, N. Chantelle Hardy, Joëlle Y. Friedman, Kevin A. Schulman, Jeremy Sugarman. (2010) Oversight of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Commercially Sponsored Research in Academic and Nonacademic Settings. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25:5, 460-464
CrossRef9
Sigrid Fry-Revere, David Bjorn Malmstrom. (2009) More Regulation of Industry-Supported Biomedical Research: Are We Asking the Right Questions?. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37:3, 420-430
CrossRef10
Lance K. Stell. (2009) Drug Reps Off Campus! Promoting Professional Purity by Suppressing Commercial Speech. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37:3, 431-443
CrossRef11
Weinfurt, Kevin P., Hall, Mark A., King, Nancy M.P., Friedman, Joëlle Y., Schulman, Kevin A., Sugarman, Jeremy, . (2009) Disclosure of Financial Relationships to Participants in Clinical Research. New England Journal of Medicine 361:9, 916-921
Full Text12
Michael J. Mack, Robert M. Sade. (2009) Relations between cardiothoracic surgeons and industry. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 137:5, 1047-1049
CrossRef13
Michael J. Mack, Robert M. Sade. (2009) Relations Between Cardiothoracic Surgeons and Industry. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 87:5, 1334-1336
CrossRef14
Joel Lexchin, Melanie Sekeres, Jennifer Gold, Lorraine E. Ferris, Sunila R. Kalkar, Wei Wu, Marleen Laethem, An-Wen Chan, David Moher, M. James Maskalyk, Nathan Taback, Paula A. Rochon. (2008) National Evaluation of Policies on Individual Financial Conflicts of Interest in Canadian Academic Health Science Centers. Journal of General Internal Medicine 23:11, 1896-1903
CrossRef15
Kevin P. Weinfurt, Mark A. Hall, Joëlle Y. Friedman, N. Chantelle Hardy, Alice K. Fortune-Greeley, Janice S. Lawlor, Jennifer S. Allsbrook, Li Lin, Kevin A. Schulman, Jeremy Sugarman. (2008) Effects of disclosing financial interests on participation in medical research: A randomized vignette trial. American Heart Journal 156:4, 689-697
CrossRef16
Theodoros I. Tosounidis, George M. Kontakis. (2008) Clinical research: The patients’ perspectives. Injury 39:6, 631-635
CrossRef17
Kanu Okike, Mininder S. Kocher, Charles T. Mehlman, Mohit Bhandari. (2008) Industry-sponsored research. Injury 39:6, 666-680
CrossRef18
Kevin P. Weinfurt, Mark A. Hall, Michaela A. Dinan, Venita DePuy, Joëlle Y. Friedman, Jennifer S. Allsbrook, Jeremy Sugarman. (2008) Effects of Disclosing Financial Interests on Attitudes Toward Clinical Research. Journal of General Internal Medicine 23:6, 860-866
CrossRef19
Joel S. Weissman, Greg Koski, Christine Vogeli, Carrie Thiessen, Eric G. Campbell. (2008) Opinions of IRB Members and Chairs Regarding Investigators' Relationships with Industry. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 3:1, 3-13
CrossRef20
Thomas P. Stossel. (2008) A biopsy of financial conflicts of interest in medicine. Surgery 143:2, 193-198
CrossRef21
P. J. M. M. Toll’s-Hertogenbosch. (2007) Hoe onafhankelijk zijn de klinisch onderzoeker en de behandelaar: conflict van belangen of van prioriteiten?. MFM 45:10, 314-315
CrossRef22
William J. Tremaine, Michael Camilleri. (2007) Ethical issues concerning therapeutic studies in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 13:9, 1141-1145
CrossRef23
M. Camilleri, D. A. Cortese. (2007) Managing Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82:5, 607-614
CrossRef24
B.H. Thiers. (2007) Patients' Views on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Cancer Research Trials. Yearbook of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery 2007, 261-262
CrossRef25
Nabel, Elizabeth G., . (2006) Conflict of Interest — or Conflict of Priorities?. New England Journal of Medicine 355:22, 2365-2367
Full Text
