| Title |
Health Professionals “Make Their Choice”: Pharmaceutical Industry Leaders’ Understandings of Conflict of Interest
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-017-9804-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Quinn Grundy, Lisa Tierney, Christopher Mayes, Wendy Lipworth |
| Abstract |
Conflicts of interest, stemming from relationships between health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry, remain a highly divisive and inflammatory issue in healthcare. Given that most jurisdictions rely on industry to self-regulate with respect to its interactions with health professionals, it is surprising that little research has explored industry leaders' understandings of conflicts of interest. Drawing from in-depth interviews with ten pharmaceutical industry leaders based in Australia, we explore the normalized and structural management of conflicts of interest within pharmaceutical companies. We contrast this with participants' unanimous belief that the antidote to conflicts of interest with health professionals were "informed consumers." It is, thus, unlikely that a self-regulatory approach will be successful in ensuring ethical interactions with health professionals. However, the pharmaceutical industry's routine and accepted practices for disclosing and managing employees' conflicts of interest could, paradoxically, serve as an excellent model for healthcare. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 21% |
| Psychology | 4 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,479,632
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#437
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,560
of 316,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.