Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Charles Perkins Centre, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Alfred Deakin Institute, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;120:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.014. Epub 2019 Dec 19.
The aim of the study was to identify the range of issues labeled as "non-financial conflicts of interest" in biomedicine, articulate the associated concerns, and analyze the implications of defining these issues as conflicts of interest.
This was a qualitative study, triangulating data from three purposively sampled sources: (1) literature, (2) policies, and (3) interviews. Participants were corresponding authors of sampled literature (December 2017 to January 2019). A critical, interpretive approach served as the analytic strategy.
A total of 99 articles provided the sampling frame; we recruited 16 participants and sampled 20 policies. Participants labeled a wide range of personal attributes, social relationships, professional experiences, intellectual endeavors, and financial interests as "non-financial conflicts of interest." Despite a lack of consensus regarding the nature of the problem, many "non-financial" interests are currently subject to policy action. The term serves as ethical shorthand to describe the ways that (1) "strong beliefs," (2) "predetermined views," (3) experiences, and (4) relationships shape evidence-led processes.
Expansion of the definition of conflict of interest to include non-financial interests may have unintended consequences, including exclusion of diverse perspectives. Problems labeled "non-financial conflicts of interest" should be defined in terms of what they are rather than what they are not (i.e., "non"-financial). We suggest instead, preventing financial conflicts of interest and ensuring inclusive and equitable representation within evidence-based processes.
本研究旨在确定生物医学领域中被标记为“非财务利益冲突”的问题范围,阐明相关问题,并分析将这些问题定义为利益冲突的影响。
这是一项定性研究,从三个有针对性抽样的来源(1)文献、(2)政策和(3)访谈中整合数据。参与者是抽样文献的通讯作者(2017 年 12 月至 2019 年 1 月)。批判性、解释性方法作为分析策略。
共有 99 篇文章提供了抽样框架;我们招募了 16 名参与者并抽取了 20 项政策。参与者将各种个人属性、社会关系、专业经验、知识努力和财务利益标记为“非财务利益冲突”。尽管对问题的性质缺乏共识,但许多“非财务”利益目前都受到政策行动的约束。该术语是描述以下几种方式的伦理简写:(1)“强烈信念”,(2)“预定观点”,(3)经验和(4)关系塑造基于证据的过程。
将利益冲突的定义扩展到包括非财务利益可能会产生意想不到的后果,包括排除不同的观点。被标记为“非财务利益冲突”的问题应该根据其本身的性质来定义,而不是根据其不是什么来定义(即“非”-财务)。我们建议,防止财务利益冲突,并确保在基于证据的过程中具有包容性和平等的代表性。