Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 24;12(6):e055963. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055963

Table 3.

Attitudes towards transparency

N Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
Payments by pharmaceutical companies are a risk for the independence of clinical practice and research 233 26/233 (11%) 41/233 (18%) 35/233 (15%) 90/233 (39%) 41/233 (18%)
In principle, I approve of transparency 233 4/233 (2%) 3/233 (1%) 16/233 (7%) 39/233 (17%) 171/233 (73%)
Collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and receiving payments by those companies is part of the medical profession 230 19/230 (8%) 35/230 (15%) 66/230 (28%) 71/230 (31%) 39/230 (17%)
Disclosure of payments should be more nuanced 233 8/233 (3%) 7/233 (3%) 43/233 (18%) 51/233 (22%) 124/233 (53%)
Disclosure of payments increases patients' trust in me 233 72/233 (31%) 45/233 (19%) 75/233 (32%) 32/233 (14%) 9/233 (4%)
Disclosure leads to a wrong impression in the public 233 9/233 (4%) 24/233 (10%) 31/233 (13%) 78/233 (33%) 91/233 (39%)
In case you are working in research
Transparency guidelines impede my scientific work 154 45/154 (29%) 40/154 (26%) 29/154 (19%) 32/154 (21%) 8/154 (5%)
I have been confronted with disclosures within the context of a published study at least once 154 56/154 (36%) 17/154 (11%) 22/154 (14%) 24/154 (16%) 35/154 (23%)
My research results were criticised because of my disclosures at least once 152 119/152 (78%) 11/152 (7%) 13/152 (9%) 5/152 (3%) 4/152 (3%)
The undifferentiated displaying of the disclosures brings science into disrepute 155 10/155 (6%) 5/155 (3%) 16/155 (10%) 37/155 (24%) 87/155 (56%)