Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 2004 Feb;30(1):73–79. doi: 10.1136/jme.2002.001461

Potential research participants' views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interest

S Kim 1, R Millard 1, P Nisbet 1, C Cox 1, E Caine 1
PMCID: PMC1757115  PMID: 14872080

Abstract

Background: Financial conflict of interest in clinical research is an area of active debate. While data exist on the perspectives and roles of academic institutions, investigators, industry sponsors, and scientific journals, little is known about the perspectives of potential research participants.

Methods: The authors surveyed potential research participants over the internet, using the Harris Interactive Chronic Illness Database. A potential research participant was defined by: (1) self report of diagnosis by a health care professional and (2) willingness to participate in clinical trials. Email invitations were sent to 20 205 persons with coronary artery disease, breast cancer, or depression; a total of 6363 persons were screened; of these, 86% or 5478 met inclusion criteria and completed the survey. The outcome measures were respondents' ratings on: importance of knowing conflict of interest information, whether its disclosure ought to be required, and its effect on willingness to participate—across seven widely discussed scenarios of financial conflicts of interest (ranging from commercial funding to equity ownership).

Results: Majority responded that knowing conflict of interest information was "extremely" or "very" important; a larger majority felt financial conflicts of interest should be disclosed as part of informed consent (64% to 87%). In all seven scenarios, a majority was still willing to participate but in some scenarios a sizable minority would be wary of participation. Respondents were more wary of individual than institutional conflicts of interest. Illness group and sociodemographic factors had modest effects and did not affect the main trends.

Conclusions: The prevailing practice of non-disclosure of financial conflicts of interest in clinical research appears contrary to the values of potential research participants.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (203.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Angell M. Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med. 2000 May 18;342(20):1516–1518. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200005183422009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blumenthal D., Campbell E. G., Causino N., Louis K. S. Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. N Engl J Med. 1996 Dec 5;335(23):1734–1739. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199612053352305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blumenthal D., Causino N., Campbell E., Louis K. S. Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences--an industry survey. N Engl J Med. 1996 Feb 8;334(6):368–373. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199602083340606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Blumenthal D., Gluck M., Louis K. S., Stoto M. A., Wise D. University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science. 1986 Jun 13;232(4756):1361–1366. doi: 10.1126/science.3715452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance--clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med. 2000 May 18;342(20):1539–1544. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200005183422024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cho M. K., Shohara R., Schissel A., Rennie D. Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities. JAMA. 2000 Nov 1;284(17):2203–2208. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.17.2203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Davidoff F., DeAngelis C. D., Drazen J. M., Nicholls M. G., Hoey J., Højgaard L., Horton R., Kotzin S., Nylenna M., Overbeke A. J. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. N Engl J Med. 2001 Sep 13;345(11):825–827. doi: 10.1056/NEJMed010093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Drazen J. M., Koski G. To protect those who serve. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1643–1645. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011303432212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Edwards S. J., Lilford R. J., Hewison J. The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1209–1212. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Emanuel E. J., Steiner D. Institutional conflict of interest. N Engl J Med. 1995 Jan 26;332(4):262–267. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199501263320412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ende J., Kazis L., Ash A., Moskowitz M. A. Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1989 Jan-Feb;4(1):23–30. doi: 10.1007/BF02596485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Finkel Marion J. Should informed consent include information on how research is funded? IRB. 1991 Sep-Oct;13(5):1–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jellinek Michael S., Levine Robert J. IRBs and pharmaceutical company funding of research. IRB. 1982 Oct;4(8):9–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Karlawish J. H., Lantos J. Community equipoise and the architecture of clinical research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1997 Fall;6(4):385–396. doi: 10.1017/s0963180100008136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Krimsky S., Rothenberg L. S. Financial interest and its disclosure in scientific publications. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):225–226. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. La Puma J., Stocking C. B., Rhoades W. D., Darling C. M., Ferner R. E., Neuberger J., VandenBurg M., Dews I., Tobias J. S. Financial ties as part of informed consent to postmarketing research. Attitudes of American doctors and patients. BMJ. 1995 Jun 24;310(6995):1660–1663. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6995.1660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lind S. E. Fee-for-service research. N Engl J Med. 1986 Jan 30;314(5):312–315. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198601303140510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lo B., Wolf L. E., Berkeley A. Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1616–1620. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011303432206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Martin J. B., Kasper D. L. In whose best interest? Breaching the academic-industrial wall. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1646–1649. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011303432213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. McCrary S. V., Anderson C. B., Jakovljevic J., Khan T., McCullough L. B., Wray N. P., Brody B. A. A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1621–1626. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011303432207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Moses H., 3rd, Martin J. B. Academic relationships with industry: a new model for biomedical research. JAMA. 2001 Feb 21;285(7):933–935. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.7.933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Rothman K. J. Conflict of interest. The new McCarthyism in science. JAMA. 1993 Jun 2;269(21):2782–2784. doi: 10.1001/jama.269.21.2782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Shimm D. S., Spece R. G., Jr Industry reimbursement for entering patients into clinical trials: legal and ethical issues. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Jul 15;115(2):148–151. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-115-2-148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Wilkinson T. M. Research, informed consent, and the limits of disclosure. Bioethics. 2001 Aug;15(4):341–363. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhang J., Yu K. F. What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998 Nov 18;280(19):1690–1691. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.19.1690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES