Lubahn J D, Mankin C J, Mankin H J, Kuhn P J
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Feb(371):256-63.
At the Academic Orthopaedic Society meeting in San Francisco on November 8 and 9, 1996, the membership addressed the issue of ethics and industry in an academic setting. Using a Delphi panel technique, they arrived at a definition of conflict of interest, and 41 separate points of acceptable and unacceptable behavior related to gifts, research awards, and funding of various activities. The Academic Orthopaedic Society Delphi Committee also mailed 191 questionnaires (157 department chairpersons and 34 program directors) to 157 training programs. The respective department chairpersons and program directors were asked to copy and distribute the questionnaires to staff (faculty) and house officers (residents and fellows) to complete anonymously and return them for collation. Ninety-one programs (58%) responded. Three hundred and fifty-two questionnaires were returned (237 from staff, 115 from house officers), each of which expressed agreement or lack of agreement with the Delphi panel report using a Likert scale technique. With only modest (and usually predictable) disagreement on certain items, the final statements by the Delphi panel were supported strongly by the survive results. The Academic Orthopaedic Society believes that the major points arrived at by the panelists should serve as the basis for ethical guidelines in the relation between academic orthopaedic institutions and industry.
1996年11月8日至9日,在旧金山召开的学术骨科学会会议上,会员们探讨了学术环境中的伦理与行业问题。通过德尔菲专家小组技术,他们得出了利益冲突的定义,以及41条与礼品、研究奖励和各类活动资助相关的可接受和不可接受行为的单独要点。学术骨科学会德尔菲委员会还向157个培训项目邮寄了191份问卷(157名系主任和34名项目主任)。要求各系主任和项目主任将问卷复印并分发给工作人员(教员)和住院医师(住院医生和研究员),让他们匿名填写并返还以便整理。91个项目(58%)进行了回复。共收回352份问卷(237份来自工作人员,115份来自住院医师),每份问卷都使用李克特量表技术表达了对德尔菲专家小组报告的同意或不同意。对于某些项目,仅有适度(且通常可预测)的不同意见,德尔菲专家小组的最终声明得到了留存结果的有力支持。学术骨科学会认为,小组成员得出的主要要点应成为学术骨科机构与行业之间伦理准则的基础。