Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 9;6(9):e012562. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012562.

Trustworthy patient decision aids: a qualitative analysis addressing the risk of competing interests.

Author information

1
The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Our aim in this study was to examine the competing interest policies and procedures of organisations who develop and maintain patient decision aids.

DESIGN:

Descriptive and thematic analysis of data collected from a cross-sectional survey of patient decision aid developer's competing interest policies and disclosure forms.

RESULTS:

We contacted 25 organisations likely to meet the inclusion criteria. 12 eligible organisations provided data. 11 organisations did not reply and 2 declined to participate. Most patient decision aid developers recognise the need to consider the issue of competing interests. Assessment processes vary widely and, for the most part, are insufficiently robust to minimise the risk of competing interests. Only half of the 12 organisations had competing interest policies. Some considered disclosure to be sufficient, while others imposed differing levels of exclusion.

CONCLUSIONS:

Patient decision aid developers do not have a consistent approach to managing competing interests. Some have developed policies and procedures, while others pay no attention to the issue. As is the case for clinical practice guidelines, increasing attention will need to be given to how the competing interests of contributors of evidence-based publications may influence materials, especially if they are designed for patient use.

KEYWORDS:

Competing Interest; Conflict of interest; patient decision aid; patient decision support

PMID:
27612542
PMCID:
PMC5020672
DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012562
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center