Table 2. Prevalence of institutional oversight approaches for faculty consulting agreements among schools of medicine and public health ^a.

Type of oversight	No.	%
Mandatory review	40	36%
All agreements reviewed	23	21%
Under some circumstances	17	15%
Optional review available	40	36%
When faculty member asks, but done purely as a favor	38	34%
Under some conditions only	3	3%
No review available	39	35%
Other approaches	55	49%
May be included in conflict-of-interest disclosure process	22	20%
School tries to convert project to sponsored research; only reviews if converted	13	12%
Addendum provisions required to be included	7	6%
Addendum available listing recommended provisions	7	6%
Other	5	5%

^a Denominator for proportions (112) is the number of “affiliated schools” (universities where a single administrator handled matters for 2 or more schools) plus the number of “unaffiliated” schools of medicine plus the number of “unaffiliated” schools of public health. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding or because response categories were not mutually exclusive (e.g., 7 schools coupled mandatory review for some types of agreements with optional review for others).