↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Public Disclosure of Industry Payments to Physicians on Patient Trust: A Randomized Experiment

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
61 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
The Effects of Public Disclosure of Industry Payments to Physicians on Patient Trust: A Randomized Experiment
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4122-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison R. Hwong, Sunita Sah, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann

Abstract

Financial ties between physicians and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry are common, but little is known about how patient trust is affected by these ties. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how viewing online public disclosure of industry payments affects patients' trust ratings for physicians, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. This was a randomized experimental evaluation. There were 278 English-speaking participants over age 18 who had seen a healthcare provider in the previous 12 months who took part in the study. Participants searched for physicians on an online disclosure database, viewed payments from industry to the physicians, and assigned trust ratings. Participants were randomized to view physicians who received no payment ($0), low payment ($250-300), or high payment (>$13,000) from industry, or to a control arm in which they did not view the disclosure website. They also were asked to search for and then rate trust in their own physician. Primary outcomes were trust in individual physician, medical profession, and industry. These scales measure trust as a composite of honesty, fidelity, competence, and global trust. Compared to physicians who received no payments, physicians who received payments over $13,000 received lower ratings for honesty [mean (SD): 3.36 (0.86) vs. 2.75 (0.95), p < 0.001] and fidelity [3.19 (0.65) vs. 2.89 (0.68), p = 0.01]. Among the 7.9% of participants who found their own physician on the website, ratings for honesty and fidelity decreased as the industry payment to the physician increased (honesty: Spearman's ρ = -0.52, p = 0.02; fidelity: Spearman's ρ = -0.55, p = 0.01). Viewing the disclosure website did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or industry. Disclosure of industry payments to physicians affected perceptions of individual physician honesty and fidelity, but not perceptions of competence. Disclosure did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02179632 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02179632 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 10 12%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Psychology 9 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 17 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,029,448
of 24,831,063 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#854
of 8,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,426
of 288,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#8
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,831,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.