Browsing by Subject "CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-3 of 3
  • Kasenda, Benjamin; von Elm, Erik; You, John J.; Bluemle, Anette; Tomonaga, Yuki; Saccilotto, Ramon; Amstutz, Alain; Bengough, Theresa; Meerpohl, Joerg J.; Stegert, Mihaela; Olu, Kelechi K.; Tikkinen, Kari A. O.; Neumann, Ignacio; Carrasco-Labra, Alonso; Faulhaber, Markus; Mulla, Sohail M.; Mertz, Dominik; Akl, Elie A.; Bassler, Dirk; Busse, Jason W.; Ferreira-Gonzalez, Ignacio; Lamontagne, Francois; Nordmann, Alain; Gloy, Viktoria; Raatz, Heike; Moja, Lorenzo; Ebrahim, Shanil; Schandelmaier, Stefan; Sun, Xin; Vandvik, Per O.; Johnston, Bradley C.; Walter, Martin A.; Burnand, Bernard; Schwenkglenks, Matthias; Hemkens, Lars G.; Bucher, Heiner C.; Guyatt, Gordon H.; Briel, Matthias (2016)
    Background Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees. Methods and Findings We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements. Conclusions Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol.
  • Järvinen, Teppo; Valtonen, Jussi; Jokihaara, Jarkko; Aarnio, Aulis; Saarni, Samuli (2021)
    Luotettavasti laaditut hoitosuositukset ovat työväline, jolla tarjotun hoidon laatua voidaan tutkitusti parantaa. Hoitosuositusten laatiminen on kuitenkin moniulotteinen prosessi, johon ei ole yhtä yksiselitteisesti oikeaa menetelmää ja joka sisältää näytön tulkinnan lisäksi myös monenlaisia arvovalintoja. Siksi hoitosuositusten laatimisprosessi on altis myös päätöksenteon systemaattisille vinoumille. Koska ne eivät johdu yksilöiden tietoisista valinnoista, niiden tehokkaat ehkäisykeinot ovat rakenteellisia. Käsittelemme tässä katsausartikkelissa mekanismeja, joilla päätöksenteko saattaa vinoutua, ja esitämme rakenteellisia ratkaisuja niiden ehkäisemiseksi. Kaksi erityisen merkittävää tekijää, jotka altistavat hoitosuositukset systemaattisille vinoumille, ovat taloudelliset sidonnaisuudet ja ammattikuntaedut. Vinoumien ehkäisykeinoiksi esitämme puolueettomien asiantuntijoiden käyttöä, metodologisen osaamisen vahvistamista ja moniammatillisia työryhmiä.
  • Zumbach, Jelena; Brubacher, Sonja P. P.; Davis, Frank; de Ruiter, Corine; Ireland, Jane L. L.; McNamara, Kathleen; October, Martta; Saini, Michael; Volbert, Renate; Laajasalo, Taina (2022)
    Little knowledge exists on how evaluators in child custody and child maltreatment cases are informed by guidelines, the kinds of qualifications required and the types of training provided in different countries. The purpose of this paper is to provide an international preliminary comparison on how child custody and child maltreatment risk assessments are conducted in selected Western countries, and how the assessments are informed by best practice guidelines. Another aim is to increase knowledge on how the guidelines and best-practice standards could be developed further to reflect recent research findings. A total number of 18 guidelines were included in the analyses: four from Canada, five from the United States, three from the United Kingdom, three from the Netherlands, two from Finland, and one from Germany. We conducted a content analysis of the included guidelines in the database, focusing on how the guidelines address the best interest of the child criteria, guidelines for conducting the assessments, considerations for evaluative criteria, and specific guidance for conducting specific assessment procedures (e.g., interviews and observations). Findings show that the qualifications of and training provided to evaluators in child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations are largely heterogeneous across the countries represented. Guidelines differ in whether and how they highlight the importance of evidence-based practices and scientifically validated assessment measures. Implications are drawn from the review and contextualized by international expert authors in the fields of forensic psychology, and family law. After the content analysis, discussion sessions within the expert group were held. The authors provide both commentaries and suggestions to improve the development of standard methods for conducting both child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations and to consider a more transparent and judicious use of social science research to guide methods and the recommendations offered within these assessments.