Enacted in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) mandates transparency in financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers. This study investigates the PPSA\'s effectiveness and its impact on industry payments to physicians. Utilizing ProPublica and Open Payments databases, a difference-in-difference analysis was conducted across ten states. Results reveal a significant reduction in pharmaceutical companies\' meal-related payments post-PPSA, impacting both the total payment amount and the number of unique physicians reached. Conversely, travel payments showed no significant impact in the primary analysis. However, subsequent analyses revealed nuanced reductions in the number of unique physicians reached, highlighting a more intricate relationship wherein pharmaceutical companies likely adjusted their financial interaction strategies with physicians differently across states. State-level variations in meals further underscore the complexity of PPSA\'s influence. This pioneering research contributes valuable empirical evidence, addressing gaps in prior studies and emphasizing the ongoing need for policy assessment to guide industry-physician relationships.

There have been repeated calls for academic institutions to develop policies and procedures to manage institutional conflicts of interest (ICOI) arising from technology transfer activities. While prior research has examined adoption of ICOI policies by medical schools and universities, little is known about how these institutions handle ICOI in practice, hindering the development of evidence-based recommendations to improve ICOI management. To address this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 senior administrators responsible for research integrity and conflict of interest issues at academic institutions. Data were analyzed using a descriptive qualitative content analysis approach, combining flexible coding to index the interview data with close examination, interpretation, and synthesis of coded content. Participants identified communication and information sharing between conflict of interest (COI) and technology transfer (TT) offices as a critical factor in the effective management of ICOI and suggested several strategies to strengthen coordination between these offices. These findings suggest that academic research institutions could strengthen COI programs by taking measures to improve communication and information sharing between COI and TT offices.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent and trends of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies to cardiologists board-certified by the Japanese Circulation Society.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis study using data from a publicly available database.
METHODS: The study focused on payments to cardiologists in Japan.
METHODS: All 15 048 cardiologists who were board-certified by the Japanese Circulation Society as of 2021.
METHODS: The primary outcome was the extent of personal payments to cardiologists in 2016-19. Secondary outcomes included the analysis of trends in these payments over the same period.
RESULTS: Of all 15 048 board-certified cardiologists, 9858 (65.5%) received personal payments totaling $112 934 503 entailing 165 013 transactions in 2016-19. The median payment per cardiologist was $2947 (IQR, $1022-$8787), with a mean of $11 456 (SD, $35 876). The Gini Index was 0.840, indicating a high concentration of payments to a small number of cardiologists. The top 1%, 5% and 10% of cardiologists received 31.6%, 59.4% and 73.5% of all payments, respectively. There were no significant trends in the number of cardiologists receiving payments or number of payments per cardiologist during the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: More than 65% of Japanese cardiologists received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies over the 4-year study period. Although the payment amount was relatively small for the majority of cardiologists, a small number of cardiologists received the vast majority of the payments.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Concern is growing over the power, influence, and threats to health and equity from the operations of large global consultancy firms. Collectively, these firms support a neoliberal policy environment promoting business interests ahead of public health. Global consultancy firms act as commercial determinants of health, an evolving area of research over recent years. However, this research mainly focuses on specific corporations or industry sectors, especially those which produce harmful products, including ultra-processed food, alcohol, and fossil fuels. It is therefore important to expand the focus to include large global consultancy firms and place a public health and equity lens over their operations.
METHODS: Global consultancy firms have wide-ranging conflicts of interest. These arise from the \'revolving door\' employment strategies between their own staff and those from government and regulatory bodies. These firms also advise governments on taxation and other matters while concurrently advising corporate clients on ways to minimise taxation. They advise fossil fuel corporations while also advising governments on climate and health policies. These firms undermine the capabilities of the public sector through the outsourcing of traditional public sector roles to these private interests. Consultancy firms foster private interests through their engagement with the higher education sector, and thereby weaken the tradition of transparent management of university affairs by accountable university councils. While private consultancies cannot be blamed for all the negative consequences for health and equity caused by the problems associated with globalisation and advanced capitalism, they have played a role in amplifying them.
CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the negative impacts of global consultancy firms will require strengthening the public sector, enforcing greater transparency, accountability, and minimising conflicts of interest. It will also demand critical thought, counter discourses, and activism to reframe the narratives supporting neo-liberal ideas of governance that are promoted in both government and business arenas.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These provide a global standard for writing and editing medical articles, including research integrity. However, no study has examined the research integrity-related content of Japanese medical journals\' Instructions for Authors. We therefore compared research integrity content in ICMJE member journals with those in the English- and Japanese-language journals of the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS).
METHODS: This was a descriptive literature study. We obtained Instructions for Authors from English- and Japanese-language journals listed on the JAMS website and the ICMJE member journals listed on the ICMJE website as of September 1, 2021. We compared the presence of 20 topics (19 in the ICMJE Recommendations plus compliance with ICMJE) in the Instructions for Authors, and analyzed the content of the conflict of interest disclosure.
RESULTS: We evaluated 12 ICMJE member journals, and 82 English-language and 99 Japanese-language subcommittee journals. The median number of topics covered was 10.5 for ICMJE member journals, 10 for English-language journals, and three for Japanese-language journals. Compliance with ICMJE was mentioned by 10 (83%) ICMJE member journals, 75 (91%) English-language journals, and 29 (29%) Japanese-language journals. The ICMJE Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form was requested by seven (64%) ICMJE member journals, 15 (18%) English-language journals, and one (1%) Japanese-language journal.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the topics in the JAMS English-language journals resembled those in the ICMJE member journals, the median value of ICMJE-related topic inclusion was approximately one-third lower in JAMS Japanese-language journals than in ICMJE member journals. It is hoped that Japanese-language journals whose conflict of interest disclosure policies differ from ICMJE standards will adopt international standards to deter misconduct and ensure publication quality.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。