对患者和健康消费者组织进行企业资助的荟萃分析
作者：
小柯机器人 发布时间：2020/2/2 16:22:35
澳大利亚悉尼大学Barbara Mintzes团队取得一项新突破。他们对患者和健康消费者组织的企业资助进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。该研究2020年1月22日发表于国际一流学术期刊《英国医学杂志》上。
为了了解医疗器械企业对患者群体的资助情况，研究组采用荟萃分析进行了一项系统回顾研究。
研究组从Ovid Medicine、Embase、科学引文索引、Scopus数据库中搜寻2018年1月之前所有符合资格的研究和领域专家，这些研究均报告以下至少一项结果：企业资金的普及率；公开此项资助信息的企业资助患者群体的比例；企业资助与卫生政策问题上的组织立场之间的关联。
经过评审人员对研究质量进行双重独立数据提取和评估后，共有26项符合条件的横断面研究纳入分析。其中15项研究估计了企业资助的普及率，从20%到83%。在接受企业资助的患者组织中，27%在其网站上公开了这些信息。
在提交给咨询机构的报告中，有两项研究展示了完全不同的公开率，分别为0%和91%，这似乎反映了相关政府机构公开要求的差异。管理企业资助的组织政策的普及率估计为2%到64%。四项研究分析了在一系列极具争议的问题上，企业融资与组织地位之间的关系。企业资助群体普遍支持赞助商的利益。
总体来说，企业对患者群体的资助似乎很普遍，普及率预计在20%至83%之间。很少有患者群体出政策来管理企业资助。企业融资的透明度也不够。企业资助的群体往往支持赞助商的利益。患者群体在宣传、教育和研究方面发挥着重要作用，因此需要制定策略，以防止出现有利于赞助商，而偏离公众利益的情况。
附：英文原文
Title: Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis
Author: Alice Fabbri, Lisa Parker, Cinzia Colombo, Paola Mosconi, Giussy Barbara, Maria Pina Frattaruolo, Edith Lau, Cynthia M Kroeger, Carole Lunny, Douglas M Salzwedel, Barbara Mintzes
Issue&Volume: 2020/01/22
Abstract:
Objective To investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups.
Design Systematic review with meta-analysis.
Data sources Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Observational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after studies of patient groups reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups that disclosed information about this funding; and association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. Studies were included irrespective of language or publication type.
Review methods Reviewers carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessment of study quality. An amended version of the checklist for prevalence studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to assess study quality. A DerSimonian-Laird estimate of single proportions with Freeman-Tukey arcsine transformation was used for meta-analyses of prevalence. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.
Results 26 cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies estimated the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). Among patient organisations that received industry funding, 27% (175/642; 95% confidence interval 24% to 31%) disclosed this information on their websites. In submissions to consultations, two studies showed very different disclosure rates (0% and 91%), which appeared to reflect differences in the relevant government agency’s disclosure requirements. Prevalence estimates of organisational policies that govern corporate sponsorship ranged from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274). Four studies analysed the relationship between industry funding and organisational positions on a range of highly controversial issues. Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors’ interests.
Conclusion In general, industry funding of patient groups seems to be common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 83%. Few patient groups have policies that govern corporate sponsorship. Transparency about corporate funding is also inadequate. Among the few studies that examined associations between industry funding and organisational positions, industry funded groups tended to have positions favourable to the sponsor. Patient groups have an important role in advocacy, education, and research, therefore strategies are needed to prevent biases that could favour the interests of sponsors above those of the public.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6925
Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.l6925
