Cargando…

Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the International Patient Decisions Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration developed quality criteria for patient decisions aids; one of the quality dimensions dealt with disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs). The purposes of this paper are to review newer evidence on dealing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barry, Michael J, Chan, Evelyn, Moulton, Benjamin, Sah, Sunita, Simmons, Magenta B, Braddock, Clarence
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4044775/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24625114
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S3
_version_ 1782319203183755264
author Barry, Michael J
Chan, Evelyn
Moulton, Benjamin
Sah, Sunita
Simmons, Magenta B
Braddock, Clarence
author_facet Barry, Michael J
Chan, Evelyn
Moulton, Benjamin
Sah, Sunita
Simmons, Magenta B
Braddock, Clarence
author_sort Barry, Michael J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In 2005, the International Patient Decisions Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration developed quality criteria for patient decisions aids; one of the quality dimensions dealt with disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs). The purposes of this paper are to review newer evidence on dealing with COI in the development of patient decision aids and to readdress the theoretical justification and definition for this quality dimension. METHODS: The committee conducted a primary systematic literature review to seek published research addressing the question, "What is the evidence that disclosure of COIs in patient decision aids reduces biased decision making?" A secondary literature review included a systematic search for recent meta-analyses addressing COIs in other spheres of health care, including research and publication, medical education, and clinical care. RESULTS: No direct evidence was found addressing this quality dimension in the primary literature review. The secondary review yielded a comprehensive Institute of Medicine report, as well as four relevant meta-analyses addressing disclosure of COIs in health care. They revealed a broad consensus that disclosure of COIs is desirable in such areas as research publication, guideline development, medical education, and clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: The committee recommends the criteria that are currently used to operationally define the quality dimension “disclosing conflicts of interest” be changed as follows (changes in italics): Does the patient decision aid: • report prominently and in plain language the source of funding to develop or exclusively distribute the patient decision aid? • report prominently and in plain language whether funders, authors, or their affiliations, stand to gain or lose by choices patients make after using the patient decision aid? Furthermore, based on a consensus that simple disclosure is insufficient to protect users from potentially biased information, the committee recommends that the IPDAS Collaboration consider adding the following criterion when the IPDAS consensus process is next conducted: “Does the patient decision aid: • report that no funding to develop or exclusively distribute the patient decision aid has been received from commercial, for-profit entities that sell tests or treatments included as options in the patient decision aid?”
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4044775
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40447752014-06-19 Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids Barry, Michael J Chan, Evelyn Moulton, Benjamin Sah, Sunita Simmons, Magenta B Braddock, Clarence BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Review BACKGROUND: In 2005, the International Patient Decisions Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration developed quality criteria for patient decisions aids; one of the quality dimensions dealt with disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs). The purposes of this paper are to review newer evidence on dealing with COI in the development of patient decision aids and to readdress the theoretical justification and definition for this quality dimension. METHODS: The committee conducted a primary systematic literature review to seek published research addressing the question, "What is the evidence that disclosure of COIs in patient decision aids reduces biased decision making?" A secondary literature review included a systematic search for recent meta-analyses addressing COIs in other spheres of health care, including research and publication, medical education, and clinical care. RESULTS: No direct evidence was found addressing this quality dimension in the primary literature review. The secondary review yielded a comprehensive Institute of Medicine report, as well as four relevant meta-analyses addressing disclosure of COIs in health care. They revealed a broad consensus that disclosure of COIs is desirable in such areas as research publication, guideline development, medical education, and clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: The committee recommends the criteria that are currently used to operationally define the quality dimension “disclosing conflicts of interest” be changed as follows (changes in italics): Does the patient decision aid: • report prominently and in plain language the source of funding to develop or exclusively distribute the patient decision aid? • report prominently and in plain language whether funders, authors, or their affiliations, stand to gain or lose by choices patients make after using the patient decision aid? Furthermore, based on a consensus that simple disclosure is insufficient to protect users from potentially biased information, the committee recommends that the IPDAS Collaboration consider adding the following criterion when the IPDAS consensus process is next conducted: “Does the patient decision aid: • report that no funding to develop or exclusively distribute the patient decision aid has been received from commercial, for-profit entities that sell tests or treatments included as options in the patient decision aid?” BioMed Central 2013-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4044775/ /pubmed/24625114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S3 Text en Copyright © 2013 Barry et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Barry, Michael J
Chan, Evelyn
Moulton, Benjamin
Sah, Sunita
Simmons, Magenta B
Braddock, Clarence
Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids
title Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids
title_full Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids
title_fullStr Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids
title_full_unstemmed Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids
title_short Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids
title_sort disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4044775/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24625114
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S3
work_keys_str_mv AT barrymichaelj disclosingconflictsofinterestinpatientdecisionaids
AT chanevelyn disclosingconflictsofinterestinpatientdecisionaids
AT moultonbenjamin disclosingconflictsofinterestinpatientdecisionaids
AT sahsunita disclosingconflictsofinterestinpatientdecisionaids
AT simmonsmagentab disclosingconflictsofinterestinpatientdecisionaids
AT braddockclarence disclosingconflictsofinterestinpatientdecisionaids