What did the scientific literature learn from internal company documents in the pharmaceutical industry? A scoping review

Abstract

Objective To identify all scientific papers that used internal industry documents in the pharmaceutical sector and analyze what and how the scientific literature learned about corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector through these internal documents. Design Scoping review. Methods Using different series of keywords, we searched six databases, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and PAIS, for peer‐reviewed journal articles analyzing pharmaceutical corporations' internal documents. We completed the scoping review using a purposive snowball sampling method to extract relevant case studies and peer‐reviewed journal articles from relevant articles' reference lists when our search keywords failed to capture them. To analyze the content of the literature and better categorize the types of corporate strategies at play in the pharmaceutical sector, we used categories of ghost‐management previously developed in the literature. Results We identified 37 peer‐reviewed papers in the final results. All the articles included in the final results are published in English. Almost all articles obtained most of their internal document data through legal proceedings. All 37 articles unveil dynamic ghost‐management strategies that pharmaceutical corporations employ to safeguard their corporate interest. The strategies identified relate to scientific capture (n = 28), professional capture (n = 16), regulatory capture (n = 6), media capture (n = 3), market capture (n = 4), technological capture (n = 2), civil society capture (n = 4), and others (n = 2). Conclusion The scientific literature using internal documents confirmed widespread corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector. While the academic literature used internal documents related to only a handful of products, our research results, based on ghost‐management categories, demonstrate the extent of corporate influence in every interstice of pharmaceutical markets, particularly in clinical research and clinical practice. It also allows us to better refine the conceptual categories of ghost‐management to better map corporate influence and conflict of interest.

Industry influence on mental health research: depression as a case example

“…However, concordance was poor (and biased in favor of industry) in meta-analyses when the researchers had financial ties to pharmaceutical firms ( 41 ). Sismundo ( 42 ) refers to the corporate capture of the scientific literature as “ghost-management.” Relatedly, a recent scoping review that examined internal company documents found that industry used “dynamic ghost-management strategies… to safeguard their corporate interest” ( 43 ).…”

“…Sismundo (42) refers to the corporate capture of the scientific literature as "ghost-management. " Relatedly, a recent scoping review that examined internal company documents found that industry used "dynamic ghost-management strategies… to safeguard their corporate interest" (43).…”

Promoting opioids, a story about how to influence medical science and opinions

“…Pharmaceutical companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars to shape medical science, literature, and physicians' opinions in target treatment areas (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8). The contracts they maintain with their various partners-from individual doctors to multimillion-dollar consulting firms and medical publishers-spell out duties and expectations, payments, and procedures.…”

Marketing estratégico en compañías de base tecnológica

“…[9] El desarrollo, elaboración y posicionamiento de nuevos productos y/o servicios farmacéuticos en los mercados implica un conocimiento tanto de las necesidades de salud de los pacientes, como de los actores que integran el sistema sanitario. Se requiere de una intervención integral en la relación médico-paciente-farmacéutico en áreas especializadas de la medicina con el fin de proporcionar el tratamiento más costo/efectivo [10] en el proceso de la prevención y/o recuperación de la enfermedad y en los que puede existir una influencia corporativa [11].…”