Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review. (3rd November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chimonas, Susan; Mamoor, Maha; Zimbalist, Sophia A; Barrow, Brooke; Bach, Peter B; Korenstein, Deborah
• Is Part Of: BMJ. Volume 375(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-11-03
• Subjects: Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine; Periodicals; 610
• DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066576
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1447

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To identify all known ties between the medical product industry and the healthcare ecosystem. Design: Scoping review. Methods: From initial literature searches and expert input, a map was created to show the network of medical product industry ties across parties and activities in the healthcare ecosystem. Through a scoping review, the ties were then verified, cataloged, and characterized, with data abstracted on types of industry ties (financial, non-financial), applicable policies for conflict of interests, and publicly available data sources. Main outcome measures: Presence and types of medical product industry ties to activities and parties, presence of policies for conflict of interests, and publicly available data. Results: A map derived through synthesis of 538 articles from 37 countries shows an extensive network of medical product industry ties to activities and parties in the healthcare ecosystem. Key activities include research, healthcare education, guideline development, formulary selection, and clinical care. Parties include non-profit entities, the healthcare profession, the market supply chain, and government. The medical product industry has direct ties to all parties and some activities through multiple pathways; direct ties extend through interrelationships among parties and activities. The most frequently identified parties were within the healthcare profession, with individual professionals described in 422 (78%) of the included studies. More than half (303, 56%) of the publications documented medical product industry ties to research, with clinical care (156, 29%), health professional education (145, 27%), guideline development (33, 6%), and formulary selection (8, 1%) appearing less often. Policies for conflict of interests exist for some financial and a few non-financial ties; publicly available data sources seldom describe or quantify these ties. Conclusions: An extensive network of medical product industry ties to activities and parties exists in the healthcare ecosystem. Policies for conflict of interests and publicly available data are lacking, suggesting that enhanced oversight and transparency are needed to protect patient care from commercial influence and to ensure public trust.