Advertising and disclosure of funding on patient organisation websites: a cross-sectional survey
Advertising and disclosure of funding on patient organisation websites: a cross-sectional survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2458-6-201
复制
发表时间：
2006-08-03
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Herxheimer, Andrew
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ball, Douglas E.;Tisocki, Klara;Herxheimer, Andrew
背景：患者组织可能会因制药行业（Pharma）捐赠而面临利益冲突和不当影响。我们研究了广告和披露的财务支持制药公司的网站上的主要patient organization.Method：六十九个国家和国际患者组织，涵盖10种疾病的状态，确定使用定义的谷歌搜索策略。使用抽象工具和年度报告检查评估了透明度、广告和制药资金披露的指标。数据进行了分析，通过简单的理货，与中位数计算的财务data.Results：患者组织的网站都清楚他们的身份，目标受众和意图，但只有三分之一的人清楚他们是如何获得他们的资金。只有4/69的网站声明了广告和利益冲突政策。广告一般都没有。54%的网站包括年度报告，但财务报告和捐助者的披露差异很大。只有7/37份报告详细列出了公司捐款，没有一份报告提供了足够的信息来显示来自制药公司的资金比例。45%的组织在其网站上宣布了制药资金，但年度报告中列出的制药捐赠者比网站上的更多（中位数为6比1）。三分之一的网站显示一个或多个公司徽标和/或与制药公司网站链接。制药公司的介绍出现在10%的网站上，其中一些提到了具体的产品。两个病人组织有明显的密切联系，以Pharma.Conclusion：病人组织的网站没有提供足够的信息，让访问者评估是否与制药存在利益冲突。虽然产品的广告通常是不存在的，但显示徽标和公司广告相对常见。患者组织的网站需要显示明确的编辑和广告政策，并披露企业捐赠的性质和程度。如果患者组织要保持独立并真正代表患者的利益和观点，还需要制定道德守则，指导患者组织及其工作人员如何与制药公司合作。由于许多组织依赖于制药公司的捐赠，自我监管可能不够，独立的监督机构应该带头要求这样做。
Background: Patient organisations may be exposed to conflicts of interest and undue influence through pharmaceutical industry (Pharma) donations. We examined advertising and disclosure of financial support by pharmaceutical companies on the websites of major patient organisations.Method: Sixty-nine national and international patient organisations covering 10 disease states were identified using a defined Google search strategy. These were assessed for indicators of transparency, advertising, and disclosure of Pharma funding using an abstraction tool and inspection of annual reports. Data were analysed by simple tally, with medians calculated for financial data.Results: Patient organisations websites were clear about their identity, target audience and intention but only a third were clear on how they derived their funds. Only 4/69 websites stated advertising and conflict of interest policies. Advertising was generally absent. 54% of sites included an annual report, but financial reporting and disclosure of donors varied substantially. Corporate donations were itemised in only 7/37 reports and none gave enough information to show the proportion of funding from Pharma. 45% of organisations declared Pharma funding on their website but the annual reports named more Pharma donors than did the websites ( median 6 vs. 1). One third of websites showed one or more company logos and/or had links to Pharma websites. Pharma companies' introductions were present on 10% of websites, some of them mentioning specific products. Two patient organisations had obvious close ties to Pharma.Conclusion: Patient organisation websites do not provide enough information for visitors to assess whether a conflict of interest with Pharma exists. While advertising of products is generally absent, display of logos and corporate advertisements is relatively common. Display of clear editorial and advertising policies and disclosure of the nature and degree of corporate donations is needed on patient organisations' websites. An ethical code to guide patient organisations and their staff members on how to collaborate with Pharma is also necessary, if patient organisations are to remain independent and truly represent the interests and views of patients. As many organizations rely on Pharma donations, self-regulation may not suffice and independent oversight bodies should take the lead in requiring this.