Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review

Abstract Background Patient groups play an important role in health care and policy. Concerns have been raised about the financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups, because of potential threats to the groups' independence. We conducted a systematic review to synthesis...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of public health 2020-09, Vol.30 (Supplement_5)
Hauptverfasser: Fabbri, A, Parker, L, Colombo, C, Mosconi, P, Barbara, G, Lau, E, Kroeger, C M, Lunny, C, Salzwedel, D M, Mintzes, B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue Supplement_5
container_start_page
container_title European journal of public health
container_volume 30
creator Fabbri, A
Parker, L
Colombo, C
Mosconi, P
Barbara, G
Lau, E
Kroeger, C M
Lunny, C
Salzwedel, D M
Mintzes, B
description Abstract Background Patient groups play an important role in health care and policy. Concerns have been raised about the financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups, because of potential threats to the groups' independence. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise studies that explored pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (from inception to January 2018). We included observational studies reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups which disclosed information about this funding; association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. We carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessed study quality. Results 26 cross-sectional studies were included. Fifteen studies assessed the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). The proportion of patient groups which disclosed funding information on their websites was low (27% [95% CI: 24%-31%]). Few patient groups had formal policies governing corporate sponsorship (range from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274)). Among the few studies examining funding status versus organisational position, industry sponsored groups tend to hold positions consistent with sponsors' interests. Conclusions We found widespread indications of industry funding of patient groups. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Research on policy impact is still limited. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented. Key messages Industry funding of patient groups is common in high income countries. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health care and policy, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.805
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2476175854</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.805</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2476175854</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1535-f17cb343aa82a25c373db5528cb510a39ac1c318d697721a59b77f31e4d67fe13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM9KAzEQh4MoWKsv4CngedtMsvmz3qRoLRS8KHgL2WxSttrdNdkofXsj2wfwNMPw_WaYD6FbIAsgFVu6FIZUL-2HMSD4QhF-hmZQirJggryf5x4IFEAFvURXMe4JIVwqOkNy0zUpjuGIfeqattvh3uPBjK3rRrwLfRriPTY4HuPoDnlscXDfrfu5RhfefEZ3c6pz9Pb0-Lp6LrYv683qYVtY4IwXHqStWcmMUdRQbplkTc05VbbmQAyrjAXLQDWikpKC4VUtpWfgykZI74DN0d20dwj9V3Jx1Ps-hS6f1LSUAiRXvMwUnSgb-hiD83oI7cGEowai_wTpSZA-CdJZUA4VUyg_-R_-FwubanA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2476175854</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review</title><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Fabbri, A ; Parker, L ; Colombo, C ; Mosconi, P ; Barbara, G ; Lau, E ; Kroeger, C M ; Lunny, C ; Salzwedel, D M ; Mintzes, B</creator><creatorcontrib>Fabbri, A ; Parker, L ; Colombo, C ; Mosconi, P ; Barbara, G ; Lau, E ; Kroeger, C M ; Lunny, C ; Salzwedel, D M ; Mintzes, B</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Patient groups play an important role in health care and policy. Concerns have been raised about the financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups, because of potential threats to the groups' independence. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise studies that explored pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (from inception to January 2018). We included observational studies reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups which disclosed information about this funding; association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. We carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessed study quality. Results 26 cross-sectional studies were included. Fifteen studies assessed the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). The proportion of patient groups which disclosed funding information on their websites was low (27% [95% CI: 24%-31%]). Few patient groups had formal policies governing corporate sponsorship (range from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274)). Among the few studies examining funding status versus organisational position, industry sponsored groups tend to hold positions consistent with sponsors' interests. Conclusions We found widespread indications of industry funding of patient groups. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Research on policy impact is still limited. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented. Key messages Industry funding of patient groups is common in high income countries. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health care and policy, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1101-1262</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-360X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.805</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Corporate sponsorship ; Cross-sectional studies ; Data quality ; Funding ; Health care ; Health services ; Industrial policy ; Information industry ; Medical equipment ; Observational studies ; Patients ; Pharmaceutical industry ; Pharmaceuticals ; Policies ; Policy analysis ; Public health ; Quality assessment ; Search engines ; Systematic review ; Transparency ; Websites</subject><ispartof>European journal of public health, 2020-09, Vol.30 (Supplement_5)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved. 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27843,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fabbri, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parker, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colombo, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mosconi, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbara, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lau, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kroeger, C M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lunny, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salzwedel, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mintzes, B</creatorcontrib><title>Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review</title><title>European journal of public health</title><description>Abstract Background Patient groups play an important role in health care and policy. Concerns have been raised about the financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups, because of potential threats to the groups' independence. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise studies that explored pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (from inception to January 2018). We included observational studies reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups which disclosed information about this funding; association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. We carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessed study quality. Results 26 cross-sectional studies were included. Fifteen studies assessed the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). The proportion of patient groups which disclosed funding information on their websites was low (27% [95% CI: 24%-31%]). Few patient groups had formal policies governing corporate sponsorship (range from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274)). Among the few studies examining funding status versus organisational position, industry sponsored groups tend to hold positions consistent with sponsors' interests. Conclusions We found widespread indications of industry funding of patient groups. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Research on policy impact is still limited. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented. Key messages Industry funding of patient groups is common in high income countries. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health care and policy, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented.</description><subject>Corporate sponsorship</subject><subject>Cross-sectional studies</subject><subject>Data quality</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Industrial policy</subject><subject>Information industry</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical industry</subject><subject>Pharmaceuticals</subject><subject>Policies</subject><subject>Policy analysis</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Search engines</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Transparency</subject><subject>Websites</subject><issn>1101-1262</issn><issn>1464-360X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkM9KAzEQh4MoWKsv4CngedtMsvmz3qRoLRS8KHgL2WxSttrdNdkofXsj2wfwNMPw_WaYD6FbIAsgFVu6FIZUL-2HMSD4QhF-hmZQirJggryf5x4IFEAFvURXMe4JIVwqOkNy0zUpjuGIfeqattvh3uPBjK3rRrwLfRriPTY4HuPoDnlscXDfrfu5RhfefEZ3c6pz9Pb0-Lp6LrYv683qYVtY4IwXHqStWcmMUdRQbplkTc05VbbmQAyrjAXLQDWikpKC4VUtpWfgykZI74DN0d20dwj9V3Jx1Ps-hS6f1LSUAiRXvMwUnSgb-hiD83oI7cGEowai_wTpSZA-CdJZUA4VUyg_-R_-FwubanA</recordid><startdate>20200901</startdate><enddate>20200901</enddate><creator>Fabbri, A</creator><creator>Parker, L</creator><creator>Colombo, C</creator><creator>Mosconi, P</creator><creator>Barbara, G</creator><creator>Lau, E</creator><creator>Kroeger, C M</creator><creator>Lunny, C</creator><creator>Salzwedel, D M</creator><creator>Mintzes, B</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200901</creationdate><title>Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review</title><author>Fabbri, A ; Parker, L ; Colombo, C ; Mosconi, P ; Barbara, G ; Lau, E ; Kroeger, C M ; Lunny, C ; Salzwedel, D M ; Mintzes, B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1535-f17cb343aa82a25c373db5528cb510a39ac1c318d697721a59b77f31e4d67fe13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Corporate sponsorship</topic><topic>Cross-sectional studies</topic><topic>Data quality</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Industrial policy</topic><topic>Information industry</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical industry</topic><topic>Pharmaceuticals</topic><topic>Policies</topic><topic>Policy analysis</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Search engines</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Transparency</topic><topic>Websites</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fabbri, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parker, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colombo, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mosconi, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbara, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lau, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kroeger, C M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lunny, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salzwedel, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mintzes, B</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>European journal of public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fabbri, A</au><au>Parker, L</au><au>Colombo, C</au><au>Mosconi, P</au><au>Barbara, G</au><au>Lau, E</au><au>Kroeger, C M</au><au>Lunny, C</au><au>Salzwedel, D M</au><au>Mintzes, B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>European journal of public health</jtitle><date>2020-09-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>Supplement_5</issue><issn>1101-1262</issn><eissn>1464-360X</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Patient groups play an important role in health care and policy. Concerns have been raised about the financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups, because of potential threats to the groups' independence. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise studies that explored pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (from inception to January 2018). We included observational studies reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups which disclosed information about this funding; association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. We carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessed study quality. Results 26 cross-sectional studies were included. Fifteen studies assessed the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). The proportion of patient groups which disclosed funding information on their websites was low (27% [95% CI: 24%-31%]). Few patient groups had formal policies governing corporate sponsorship (range from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274)). Among the few studies examining funding status versus organisational position, industry sponsored groups tend to hold positions consistent with sponsors' interests. Conclusions We found widespread indications of industry funding of patient groups. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Research on policy impact is still limited. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented. Key messages Industry funding of patient groups is common in high income countries. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health care and policy, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.805</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1101-1262
ispartof European journal of public health, 2020-09, Vol.30 (Supplement_5)
issn 1101-1262
1464-360X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2476175854
source Oxford Journals Open Access Collection; PAIS Index; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Corporate sponsorship
Cross-sectional studies
Data quality
Funding
Health care
Health services
Industrial policy
Information industry
Medical equipment
Observational studies
Patients
Pharmaceutical industry
Pharmaceuticals
Policies
Policy analysis
Public health
Quality assessment
Search engines
Systematic review
Transparency
Websites
title Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T13%3A19%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Industry%20funding%20of%20patient%20groups:%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20public%20health&rft.au=Fabbri,%20A&rft.date=2020-09-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=Supplement_5&rft.issn=1101-1262&rft.eissn=1464-360X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.805&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2476175854%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2476175854&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.805&rfr_iscdi=true