Promotion or education: a content analysis of industry-authored oral health educational materials targeted at acute care nurses

Abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the nature, quality and independence of scientific evidence provided in support of claims in industry-authored educational materials in oral health.DesignA content analysis of educational materials authored by the four major multinational oral health product manufacturers.SettingAcute care settings.Participants68 documents focused on oral health or oral care, targeted at acute care clinicians and identified as ‘educational’ on companies’ international websites.Main outcome measuresData were extracted in duplicate for three areas of focus: (a) products referenced in the documents, (b) product-related claims and (c) citations substantiating claims. We assessed claim–citation pairs to determine if information in the citation supported the claim. We analysed the inter-relationships among cited authors and companies using social network analysis.ResultsDocuments ranged from training videos to posters to brochures to continuing education courses. The majority of educational materials explicitly mentioned a product (59/68, 87%), a branded product (35/68, 51%), and made a product-related claim (55/68, 81%). Among claims accompanied by a citation, citations did not support the majority (91/147, 62%) of claims, largely because citations were unrelated. References used to support claims most often represented lower levels of evidence: only 9% were systematic reviews (7/76) and 13% were randomised controlled trials (10/76). We found a network of 20 authors to account for 37% (n=77/206) of all references in claim–citation pairs; 60% (12/20) of the top 20 cited authors received financial support from one of the four sampled manufacturers.ConclusionsResources to support clinicians’ ongoing education are scarce. However, caution should be exercised when relying on industry-authored materials to support continuing education for oral health. Evidence of sponsorship bias and reliance on key opinion leaders suggests that industry-authored educational materials have promotional intent and should be regulated as such.

How the Suboxone Education Programme presented as a solution to risks in the Canadian opioid crisis: a critical discourse analysis

“…Three researchers (AS, MS and QG) then constructed a semistructured data extraction instrument (online supplemental file 2) based on congruent approaches to critical analysis of policies, media and industry-authored educational materials 21 22 31. This instrument was first piloted by three researchers (MS, AS and QG) with three documents from the primary archive.…”

Potential Allergenicity of Plants Used in Allergological Communication: An Untapped Tool for Prevention

“…Othman et al [ 68 ] concluded that the low quality of pharmaceutical advertisements is a global issue. Since these observations were published in 2009, there is still a conflict between promotion and information in the pharmaceutical industry [ 69 ]. Although most of these critical studies focus on written information in advertisements, visual information seems inaccurate and misleading as well.…”

Industry Representatives as “Essential” Educators

“…However, even if industry educational materials appear “evidence based,” research suggests these materials need to be thoroughly vetted and may not be a reliable source of information. For example, in a recent study of educational materials authored by companies that manufacture oral health products, we found that most made product-related claims but that nearly half of these claims were not accompanied by any evidence (Grundy et al, 2020). Those that did provide a citation often cited scientific articles that were not related or exaggerated the benefits of the study's findings.…”