Department of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 Feb;16(1):21-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01106.x. Epub 2009 Oct 27.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Conflict-of-interest (COI) policies have played a vital role in protecting the integrity of science as well as protecting patients' welfare. However, the usefulness of these policies could be enhanced by addressing gaps in disclosure requirements, especially insofar as these gaps may impede the intended neutrality of COI policies. For example, current COI policies have not addressed potential conflicts created by indirect industry funding, such as when pharmaceutical companies provide general funding to researchers' academic departments or to medical educational programmes. Nor do they address the consequent creation of climates of opinion, which may marginalize important criticisms and undermine progress on this important policy issue.
The authors used a critical thinking approach to analyze the gaps in existing COI policies.
Taking the position that a more adequate system of checks and balances is needed, the authors offer specific recommendations for improving current policies and for addressing the issue of indirect support.
背景、目的和目标：利益冲突（COI）政策在保护科学完整性和保护患者福利方面发挥了至关重要的作用。然而，通过解决披露要求方面的差距，可以提高这些政策的有用性，特别是因为这些差距可能会阻碍 COI 政策的预期中立性。例如，现行的 COI 政策尚未解决间接行业资助所产生的潜在冲突，例如制药公司向研究人员的学术部门或医学教育计划提供一般资助的情况。它们也没有解决由此产生的意见氛围问题，这些问题可能会边缘化重要的批评意见，并破坏在这一重要政策问题上的进展。
作者使用批判性思维方法分析了现有 COI 政策中的差距。
作者认为需要建立更完善的制衡体系，因此提出了改进现有政策和解决间接支持问题的具体建议。
