Cargando…

Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) representing the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe, introduced three codes of conduct between 2007 and 2013, which had a common goal of self-regulating interactions with healthcare professionals and patient organ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rodzinka, Marcin, Seebohm, Annabel, Pozniak, Eugene, Mosch, Lina, De Luca, Lara, McArdle, Jill, Griebenow, Reinhard, Velcheva, Margarita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31807368
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2019.1685771
_version_ 1783474167744561152
author Rodzinka, Marcin
Seebohm, Annabel
Pozniak, Eugene
Mosch, Lina
De Luca, Lara
McArdle, Jill
Griebenow, Reinhard
Velcheva, Margarita
author_facet Rodzinka, Marcin
Seebohm, Annabel
Pozniak, Eugene
Mosch, Lina
De Luca, Lara
McArdle, Jill
Griebenow, Reinhard
Velcheva, Margarita
author_sort Rodzinka, Marcin
collection PubMed
description The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) representing the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe, introduced three codes of conduct between 2007 and 2013, which had a common goal of self-regulating interactions with healthcare professionals and patient organisations. This former set of rules was appreciated as a first self-regulatory step, although self-regulation itself is still considered by many stakeholders as insufficient to provide thorough transparency. EFPIA agreed to replace the separate codes with a new, consolidated EFPIA Code of Practice. The consolidated Code was broadened to include a new section on medical education that outlines the scope of member companies' engagement in “medical education activities?. This new section is controversial as it explicitly confirms that EFPIA members can be involved in medical education. In our view “independent Medical Education“ per se prevents industry from “organising“ events, i.e. industry must not influence content, presentation, choice of lecturers or publication of results. What is more, only events respecting this key principle (amongst others) can be recognised for purposes of continuing medical education/continuing professional development (CME/CPD). A substantial portion of the medical education is currently funded by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. This practice carries a significant risk to public and personal health, especially if it is not adequately safeguarded by a high standard of accreditation. We are most concerned by the fact that EFPIA, representing the pharmaceutical industry, is trying to broaden the approach to medical education, to include activities that are not independently evaluated as free from undue influence and conflicts of interest. We believe that in order to preserve scientific integrity and independence, pharmaceutical companies must not be granted the right to influence the content of medical education.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6882466
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68824662019-12-05 Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice Rodzinka, Marcin Seebohm, Annabel Pozniak, Eugene Mosch, Lina De Luca, Lara McArdle, Jill Griebenow, Reinhard Velcheva, Margarita J Eur CME Position Paper The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) representing the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe, introduced three codes of conduct between 2007 and 2013, which had a common goal of self-regulating interactions with healthcare professionals and patient organisations. This former set of rules was appreciated as a first self-regulatory step, although self-regulation itself is still considered by many stakeholders as insufficient to provide thorough transparency. EFPIA agreed to replace the separate codes with a new, consolidated EFPIA Code of Practice. The consolidated Code was broadened to include a new section on medical education that outlines the scope of member companies' engagement in “medical education activities?. This new section is controversial as it explicitly confirms that EFPIA members can be involved in medical education. In our view “independent Medical Education“ per se prevents industry from “organising“ events, i.e. industry must not influence content, presentation, choice of lecturers or publication of results. What is more, only events respecting this key principle (amongst others) can be recognised for purposes of continuing medical education/continuing professional development (CME/CPD). A substantial portion of the medical education is currently funded by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. This practice carries a significant risk to public and personal health, especially if it is not adequately safeguarded by a high standard of accreditation. We are most concerned by the fact that EFPIA, representing the pharmaceutical industry, is trying to broaden the approach to medical education, to include activities that are not independently evaluated as free from undue influence and conflicts of interest. We believe that in order to preserve scientific integrity and independence, pharmaceutical companies must not be granted the right to influence the content of medical education. Taylor & Francis 2019-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6882466/ /pubmed/31807368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2019.1685771 Text en © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Position Paper
Rodzinka, Marcin
Seebohm, Annabel
Pozniak, Eugene
Mosch, Lina
De Luca, Lara
McArdle, Jill
Griebenow, Reinhard
Velcheva, Margarita
Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice
title Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice
title_full Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice
title_fullStr Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice
title_full_unstemmed Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice
title_short Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice
title_sort regulating for bias in medical education – reaction to the pharmaceutical industry updated efpia code of practice
topic Position Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31807368
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2019.1685771
work_keys_str_mv AT rodzinkamarcin regulatingforbiasinmedicaleducationreactiontothepharmaceuticalindustryupdatedefpiacodeofpractice
AT seebohmannabel regulatingforbiasinmedicaleducationreactiontothepharmaceuticalindustryupdatedefpiacodeofpractice
AT pozniakeugene regulatingforbiasinmedicaleducationreactiontothepharmaceuticalindustryupdatedefpiacodeofpractice
AT moschlina regulatingforbiasinmedicaleducationreactiontothepharmaceuticalindustryupdatedefpiacodeofpractice
AT delucalara regulatingforbiasinmedicaleducationreactiontothepharmaceuticalindustryupdatedefpiacodeofpractice
AT mcardlejill regulatingforbiasinmedicaleducationreactiontothepharmaceuticalindustryupdatedefpiacodeofpractice
AT griebenowreinhard regulatingforbiasinmedicaleducationreactiontothepharmaceuticalindustryupdatedefpiacodeofpractice
AT velchevamargarita regulatingforbiasinmedicaleducationreactiontothepharmaceuticalindustryupdatedefpiacodeofpractice