Table 3.

Unweighted responses from Society of Academic Emergency Medicine faculty who did or did not receive fee-for-service money.

Statement	Respondents with Fee-for-Service Money (%) n=145	Respondents without Fee-for-Service Money (%) n=285	p-value
I would feel comfortable talking to a pharmaceuticalindustry representative in a non-clinical setting.	68	53	0.002
I would feel comfortable accepting nominal gifts: i.e. meals from an industry representative in the clinical setting.	27	31	0.45
I would feel comfortable accepting nominal gifts: i.e. meals from an industry representative in the non-clinical setting.	56	24	<0.0001
I would feel comfortable acting as a paid consultant for industry.	52	39	0.01
I would feel comfortable if SAEM accepted unrestricted educational grants from industry.	38	20	<0.0001
The annual meeting for SAEM would benefit from the addition of industry-sponsored satellite symposia.	70	50	<0.0001
An industry-sponsored CME lecture can be presented in a fair and unbiased way.	57	33	<0.0001
Direct person to person marketing through representatives has an influence on my medical decision making.	28	28	0.99
My participation in industry-sponsored research has provided financial support for other research endeavors.	46	16	<0.0001
My participation in industry-sponsored research has introduced me to collaborators within EM.	53	17	<0.0001
My participation in industry-sponsored research has introduced me to collaborators outside of EM.	51	14	<0.0001
My participation in industry-sponsored research has resulted in publications.	43	15	<0.0001
Industry has no influence on my clinical decision making.	32	32	0.92
Industry-sponsored research produces biased results.	45	61	0.001
The SAEM annual meeting has remained an unbiased forum because it has not permitted industry sponsorship.	43	52	0.10
Industry representatives should have restricted access to residents and students.	57	68	0.02
Honoraria for speakers introduce bias when provided by industry.	49	69	0.0001