Lee Yeh Chen, Kroon René, Koczwara Bogda, Haines Ian, Francis Kay, Millward Michael, Kefford Richard, Olver Ian, Mileshkin Linda
Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Department of Medical Oncology, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Intern Med J. 2017 Aug;47(8):888-893. doi: 10.1111/imj.13482.
The completion of continuing professional development (CPD) is mandatory for medical oncologists and trainees (MO&T). Pharmaceutical companies may fund some CPD activities, but there is increasing debate about the potential for conflicts of interest (COI).
To assess current practices around funding to attend CPD activities.
An electronic survey was distributed to Australian MO&T. The survey asked questions about current practices, institutional policies and perceptions about attending CPD funded by pharmaceutical companies. The design looked at comparing responses between MO&T as well as their understanding of and training around institutional and ethical process.
A total of 157 of 653 (24%) responses was received, the majority from MO (76%). Most CPD activities attended by MO&T were self-funded (53%), followed by funding from institutions (19%), pharmaceutical companies (16%) and salary award (16%). Most institutions allowed MO&T to receive CPD funding from professional organisations (104/157, 66%) or pharmaceutical companies (90/157, 57%). A minority of respondents (13/157, 8%) reported that the process to use pharmaceutical funds had been considered by an ethics committee. Although 103/157 (66%) had received pharmaceutical funding for CPD, most (109/157, 69%) reported never receiving training about potential COI. The lack of education was more noticeable among trainees (odds ratio (OR) 8.61, P = 0.02). MO&T acknowledged the potential bias towards a pharmaceutical product (P = 0.05) but believed there was adequate separation between themselves and pharmaceutical companies (P < 0.01).
Majority of CPD attended by MO&T is self-funded. There is lack of clarity in institutional policies regarding external funding support for CPD activities. Formal education about potential COI is lacking.
继续职业发展（CPD）的完成对肿瘤内科医生和实习生（MO&T）来说是强制性的。制药公司可能会资助一些CPD活动，但关于利益冲突（COI）可能性的争论日益激烈。
评估当前围绕资助参加CPD活动的做法。
向澳大利亚的MO&T发放了一份电子调查问卷。该调查询问了关于当前做法、机构政策以及对参加制药公司资助的CPD的看法等问题。设计旨在比较MO&T之间的回答以及他们对机构和道德流程的理解与培训情况。
共收到653份回复中的157份（24%），大多数来自肿瘤内科医生（76%）。MO&T参加的大多数CPD活动是自费的（53%），其次是机构资助（19%）、制药公司资助（16%）和薪资奖励（16%）。大多数机构允许MO&T接受专业组织（104/157，66%）或制药公司（90/157，57%）的CPD资助。少数受访者（13/157，8%）报告称使用制药资金的流程已由伦理委员会审议。尽管103/157（66%）曾获得制药公司的CPD资助，但大多数（109/157，69%）报告从未接受过关于潜在利益冲突的培训。实习生中缺乏教育的情况更为明显（优势比（OR）8.61，P = 0.02）。MO&T承认对药品存在潜在偏见（P = 0.05），但认为他们自身与制药公司之间有足够的区分（P < 0.01）。
MO&T参加的CPD活动大多数是自费的。机构关于CPD活动外部资金支持的政策缺乏明确性。缺乏关于潜在利益冲突的正规教育。
