Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review. (30th September 2020) - Fabbri, A
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.