The Impact of Financial Disclosure on Attendee Assessment of Objectivity in Continuing Medical Education Programs in Psychiatry: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
The purpose of financial conflict of interest disclosures by speakers at continuing medical education (CME) programs is to assist attendees in their assessment of the objectivity of the information presented. This empirical study was undertaken to determine what level of disclosure is optimal to achieve this goal.
Attendees at five CME programs were randomly assigned to receive either a standard financial disclosure, an intermediate level that included whether speakers received more or less than 5 % of their income from each company they disclosed, or a high level of disclosure that included the percent of their income derived from each company. A total of 169 attendees (85.4 % response rate) completed a questionnaire regarding the objectivity of the CME presentation they attended.
Attendees receiving the highest level of disclosure came significantly closer to the ratings of speaker bias made by peer reviewers than did attendees receiving medium or low levels of disclosure (p = 0.03; effect size 0.31). Among the minority of attendees who received the highest level of disclosure but whose assessment of bias differed from that of peer reviewers, however, there was a tendency to underestimate bias (5.9 vs 31.4 %; p < 0.0001).
The major limitation of this study was an overall low level of bias in the presentations, making it difficult to generalize these findings to less objective programs. The study did not address whether the process of disclosure had an impact on speakers' behavior. This study provides mixed support for higher levels of financial disclosure than are currently required for CME programs.
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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,587,406
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Academic Psychiatry
#1,048
of 1,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,235
of 267,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Psychiatry
#32
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 267,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
