Disclosure is Inadequate as a Solution to Managing Conflicts of Interest in Human Research

Disclosure is a common response to conflicts of interest; it is intended to expose the conflict to scrutiny and enable it to be appropriately managed. For disclosure to be effective the receiver of the disclosure needs to be able to use the information to assess how the conflict may impact on their interests and then implement a suitable response. The act of disclosure also creates an expectation of self-regulation, as the person with the conflicting interests will be mindful of their own potential biases and aware that their decisions may be monitored. This article discusses some of the problems of relying on disclosure as a solution to address conflicts of interest in research, including the added complexities around institutional conflicts of interest. The case of Dan Markingson illustrates these issues and highlights the vulnerable position relying on disclosure as a solution leaves research participants in.     

Conflicts of Interest in Environmental Management: Estimating the Costs and Benefits of a Tree Invasion

Some alien tree species used in commercial forestry cause major problems as invaders of natural ecosystems. One such case, the black wattle tree, was introduced into South Africa from Australia in the 19th century. It is an important commercial species, as well as an aggressive invader, giving rise to significant environmental impacts and conflicts of interest. This paper provides an analysis of costs and benefits associated with this species in South Africa at a national level. The results suggest that a do nothing scenario (with no attempts being made to control the spread of the species beyond the limits of plantations) is not sustainable, as the benefit–cost ratio is around 0.4. The most attractive control option will be to combine physical clearing and plant-attacking biological control with the continuation of the commercial growing activities. In case this is not practically feasible the next best option is a combination of seed-attacking biological control, physical control and the development of secondary industries based on wood products from clearing programmes. There is, however, a 40% loss of benefits involved with this option when compared with the first best option. The techniques used in this study, and the findings relating to the scenarios that deliver the best returns on investment, should be of broad relevance to the problem of dealing with conflicts of interest relating to invasive alien plants that have commercial value.     

Dazed and Confused: Sports Medicine,Conflicts of Interest,and Concussion Management

Professional sports with high rates of concussion have become increasingly concerned about the long-term effects of multiple head injuries. In this context, return-to-play decisions about concussion generate considerable ethical tensions for sports physicians. Team doctors clearly have an obligation to the welfare of their patient (the injured athlete) but they also have an obligation to their employer (the team), whose primary interest is typically success through winning. At times, a team’s interest in winning may not accord with the welfare of an injured player, particularly when it comes to decisions about returning to play after injury. Australia’s two most popular professional football codes—rugby league and Australian Rules football—have adopted guidelines that prohibit concussed players from continuing to play on the same day. I suggest that conflicts of interest between doctors, patients, and teams may present a substantial obstacle to the proper adherence of concussion guidelines. Concussion management guidelines implemented by a sport’s governing body do not necessarily remove or resolve conflicts of interest in the doctor–patient–team triad. The instigation of a concussion exclusion rule appears to add a fourth party to this triad (the National Rugby League or the Australian Football League). In some instances, when conflicts of interest among stakeholders are ignored or insufficiently managed, they may facilitate attempts at circumventing concussion management guidelines to the detriment of player welfare.     

Addressing Passive Smoking in Children

Background

A significant number of parents are unaware or unconvinced of the health consequences of passive smoking (PS) in children. Physicians could increase parental awareness by giving personal advice.

Aim

To evaluate the current practices of three Dutch health professions (paediatricians, youth health care physicians, and family physicians) regarding parental counselling for passive smoking (PS) in children.

Methods

All physicians (n = 720) representing the three health professions in Limburg, the Netherlands, received an invitation to complete a self-administered electronic questionnaire including questions on their: sex, work experience, personal smoking habits, counselling practices and education regarding PS in children.

Results

The response rate was 34%. One tenth (11%) of the responding physicians always addressed PS in children, 32% often, 54% occasionally and 4% reported to never attend to it. The three health professions appeared comparable regarding their frequency of parental counselling for PS in children. Addressing PS was more likely when children had respiratory problems. Lack of time was the most frequently mentioned barrier, being very and somewhat applicable for respectively 14% and 43% of the physicians. One fourth of the responders had received postgraduate education about PS. Additionally, 49% of the responders who did not have any education about PS were interested in receiving it.

Conclusions

Physicians working in the paediatric field in Limburg, the Netherlands, could more frequently address PS in children with parents. Lack of time appeared to be the most mentioned barrier and physicians were more likely to counsel parents for PS in children with respiratory complaints/diseases. Finally, a need for more education on parental counselling for PS was expressed.     

Managing Conflicts of Interest in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical Guidelines Programme: Qualitative Study

Background

There is international concern that conflicts of interest (COI) may bias clinical guideline development and render it untrustworthy. Guideline COI policies exist with the aim of reducing this bias but it is not known how such policies are interpreted and used by guideline producing organisations. This study sought to determine how conflicts of interest (COIs) are disclosed and managed by a national clinical guideline developer (NICE: the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence).

Methods

Qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with 14 key informants: 8 senior staff of NICE’s guideline development centres and 6 chairs of guideline development groups (GDGs). We conducted a thematic analysis.

Results

Participants regard the NICE COI policy as comprehensive leading to transparent and independent guidance. The application of the NICE COI policy is, however, not straightforward and clarity could be improved. Disclosure of COI relies on self reporting and guideline developers have to take “on trust” the information they receive, certain types of COI (non-financial) are difficult to categorise and manage and disclosed COI can impact on the ability to recruit clinical experts to GDGs. Participants considered it both disruptive and stressful to exclude members from GDG meetings when required by the COI policy. Nonetheless the impact of this disruption can be minimised with good group chairing skills.

Conclusions

We consider that the successful implementation of a COI policy in clinical guideline development requires clear policies and procedures, appropriate training of GDG chairs and an evaluation of how the policy is used in practice.     

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

Background

Industry sponsors'' financial interests might bias the conclusions of scientific research. We examined whether financial industry funding or the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest influenced the results of published systematic reviews (SRs) conducted in the field of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and weight gain or obesity.

Methods and Findings

We conducted a search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases to identify published SRs from the inception of the databases to August 31, 2013, on the association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. SR conclusions were independently classified by two researchers into two groups: those that found a positive association and those that did not. These two reviewers were blinded with respect to the stated source of funding and the disclosure of conflicts of interest.We identified 17 SRs (with 18 conclusions). In six of the SRs a financial conflict of interest with some food industry was disclosed. Among those reviews without any reported conflict of interest, 83.3% of the conclusions (10/12) were that SSB consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain. In contrast, the same percentage of conclusions, 83.3% (5/6), of those SRs disclosing some financial conflict of interest with the food industry were that the scientific evidence was insufficient to support a positive association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. Those reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them (relative risk: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3–19.3).An important limitation of this study is the impossibility of ruling out the existence of publication bias among those studies not declaring any conflict of interest. However, the best large randomized trials also support a direct association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity.

Conclusions

Financial conflicts of interest may bias conclusions from SRs on SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary