Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Sara Schroter, Julia Pakpoor, Julie Morris, Mabel Chew, Fiona Godlee, Sara Schroter, Julia Pakpoor, Julie Morris, Mabel Chew, Fiona Godlee

Abstract

Introduction: Financial ties with industry are varied and common among academics, doctors and institutions. Clinical educational articles are intended to guide patient care and convey authors' own interpretation of selected data. Author biases in educational articles tend to be less visible to readers compared to those in research papers. Little is known about which types of competing interest statements affect readers' interpretation of the credibility of these articles. This study aims to investigate how different competing interest statements in educational articles affect clinical readers' perceptions of the articles.

Methods and analysis: 2040 doctors who are members of the British Medical Association (BMA) and receive a copy of the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) each week will be randomly selected and invited by an email to participate in the study. They will be randomised to receive 1 of 2 Clinical Reviews, each with 1 of 4 possible competing interest statements. Versions of each review will be identical except for permutations of the competing interest statement. Study participants will be asked to read their article and complete an online questionnaire. The questionnaire will ask participants to rate their confidence in the conclusions drawn in the article, the importance of the article, their level of interest in the article and their likeliness to change their practice from the article. Factorial analyses of variance and analyses of covariance will be carried out to assess the impact of the type of competing interest statement and Clinical Review on level of confidence, importance, interest and likeliness to change practice.

Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol, questionnaire and letter of invitation to participants have been reviewed by members of The BMJ's Ethics Committee for ethical concerns. The trial results will be disseminated to participants and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number: NCT02548312; Pre-results.

Keywords: Conflicts of interest; MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING; MEDICAL JOURNALISM; Readers; randomised controlled trial.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

References

    1. Lo B, Field MJ, Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, eds Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. National Academies Press, 2009.
    1. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 1993;329:573–6. 10.1056/NEJM199308193290812
    1. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J et al. . Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:MR000033 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2
    1. Glaser BE, Bero LA. Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: a systematic review. Sci Eng Ethics 2005;11:553–73. 10.1007/s11948-005-0026-z
    1. Kesselheim AS, Roberston CT, Myers JA et al. . A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. N Eng J Med 2012;367:1119–27. 10.1056/NEJMsa1202397
    1. Sackett D. Industry-initiated drug trials are far less credible to Canadian internists than investigator-initiated trials. Can J Gen Intern Med 2008;3:29–32.
    1. Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R et al. . Does declaration of competing interests affect reader perceptions: a randomised trial? BMJ 2002;325:1391–2. 10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1391
    1. Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S et al. . Does the type of competing interest statement affect reader perceptions of the credibility of research? A randomised trial. BMJ 2004;328: 742–3.
    1. Chew M, Brizzell C, Abbasi K et al. . Medical journals and industry ties. BMJ 2014;349:g7197 10.1136/bmj.g7197
    1. Rosenbaum L. Reconnecting the dots—reinterpreting industry–physician relations. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1860–4. 10.1056/NEJMms1502493
    1. Rosenbaum L. Understanding bias—the case for careful study. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1959–63. 10.1056/NEJMms1502497
    1. Rosenbaum L. Beyond moral outrage—weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2064–8. 10.1056/NEJMms1502498
    1. Drazen JM. Revisiting the commercial-academic interface. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1853–4. 10.1056/NEJMe1503623
    1. Kassirer JP. Tackling conflicts of interest. What the New England Journal of Medicine did. BMJ 2011;343:d5665 10.1136/bmj.d5665
    1. Loder E, Brizzell C, Godlee F. Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals. BMJ 2015;350:h2957 10.1136/bmj.h2957
    1. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129–36. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00126-1
    1. Cunningham CT, Quan H, Hemmelgarn B et al. . Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015;15:32 10.1186/s12874-015-0016-z

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅