Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015

Yoo, Stella K.; Ahmed, Awad A.; Ileto, Jan; Zaorsky, Nicholas G.; Deville, Curtiland; Holliday, Emma B.; Wilson, Lynn D.; Jagsi, Reshma; Thomas, Charles R.

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.202

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, one study used the freeware application “Webscraper” (Hopkins et al , 2019), and another two articles did not indicate how gender was identified (Zaorsky et al , 2019; Yoo et al , 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In three cases, only general and research payments were considered (Feng et al , 2016; Eloy et al , 2017b; Eloy et al , 2017a), and the same number of articles considered only general payments (Weiner et al , 2017; Perlis and Perlis, 2016; Brunt, 2019). In some articles, authors mixed payments (or subcategories of general payments) in various ways, explaining why and how this was done (Reddy et al , 2016; Brunt, 2019; Weng et al , 2019; Muffly et al , 2018; Yoo et al , 2017). Only one article failed to describe the payments chosen for analysis (Hopkins et al , 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender differences in the medical industries’ payments to physicians: a systematic review

Makowska

Sillup

2021

IJPHM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to explore gender differences in payments made to physicians by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries via the performance of a systematic review of articles based on the Open Payments Database (OPD). Design/methodology/approach Three databases (Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched for articles published from September 30, 2014 to May 10, 2019, using two search terms: “Sunshine Act” and “Open Payments.” The systematic review is reported according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Findings The search identified 359 abstracts. Thirty-nine articles were selected for full review, and 17 of these met the inclusion criteria. Although the articles considered are based on the same database, they adopt diverse approaches and analyses are conducted in different ways. A substantial proportion of the studies show total payments from the two industries to be higher for male physicians than for female physicians. However, a few exceptions exist, higher female mean or median values occurring for payments involving research, ownership, honoraria, grants, royalties/licenses and travel/lodgings. Also, in the case of obstetric–gynecological specializations, a higher proportion of women than men are shown to cooperate with the industries. Originality/value There is gender inequality in terms of industries’ funding for doctors. While analyses of secondary OPD data show that a gender inequality exists, they do not provide an understanding of why this occurs. However, from the exceptions identified, it can be speculated that this phenomenon is connected with greater adherence to ethical standards on the part of female physicians and/or the likelihood that fewer opportunities for industrial cooperation are extended to them.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in the medical industries’ payments to physicians: a systematic review

Makowska

Sillup

2021

IJPHM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, this sample focused on US medical school faculty submitting their first R01 application and cannot be generalized to the entire NIH-funded biomedical research workforce or to investigators outside of the United States. Third, this analysis does not include prior history of foundation or industry funding, which may influence the probability of an application being discussed or funded [ 40 , 41 ]. Finally, some applicants may have used the feedback on their initial review to scale back and refine their original R01 application into small grant mechanisms (i.e., R21, R03, etc.).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Early career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group’s recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission. Methods and findings First-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000–2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively. First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications—for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82–3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22–2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications. Conclusions Encouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2–4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.

show abstract

“…There are other categories and forms of COIs, however, we felt that these three were sufficient for the purposes of this analysis. Industry-funded oncological research has increased over time, 19 with a greater proportion coming from North America 20 and a large proportion of radiation oncologists, 21 including academic chairs, 22 receiving some form of payment from industry. Collaboration between industry and researchers can be beneficial, 23,24 but guidance may be needed to manage COIs and ensure full and meaningful disclosure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meaningful and Accurate Disclosure of Conflict of Interest at the ASTRO National Meeting: A Need for Reassessment of Current Policies

Ahmed

Yoo

Mehta

et al. 2018

JOP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Conflict of interest (COI) disclosure is essential to research integrity. The average reading comprehension in English is 3.8 words per second (wps). This study examines presenters at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) national meeting over a recent 3-year period to determine whether disclosure is presented accurately and in a manner that allows the audience to comprehend the content. Methods: We examined videos of presentations as well as slides from 2014 to 2016 from the ASTRO virtual meeting, noting whether a COI slide was presented, the duration the slide was visible, and the number of disclosures. Disclosures were cross-referenced for discrepancies with the publicly reported Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Using a cutoff of 4 wps, we noted how many presentations were presented at speeds of ≤ 4 wps and > 4 wps. Results: The final data set consisted of 401 presentations delivered by 364 presenters. Using a threshold of 4 wps, 34.0% of presenters had COI slides shown too fast for the average audience to comprehend. Moreover, 16.3% of US physicians incorrectly underreported industry funding received. Of these presentations with discrepancies, 32.6% did not have a COI slide, 39.5% failed to disclose any COI, 27.9% partially disclosed COIs, and 11.6% contained multiple discrepancies. The number of wps were correlated with having a discrepancy on multivariable regression ( P = .046; odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.19). Conclusion: A substantial minority of presentations at ASTRO lack meaningful disclosure, and a surprising number incorrectly reported COIs. Additional guidance may be needed to promote more meaningful and accurate disclosure of COIs at major national meetings in oncology.

show abstract

Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

Gender differences in the medical industries’ payments to physicians: a systematic review

Gender differences in the medical industries’ payments to physicians: a systematic review

Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort

Meaningful and Accurate Disclosure of Conflict of Interest at the ASTRO National Meeting: A Need for Reassessment of Current Policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About