A comparison of policy provisions for managing "financial" and "non-financial" interests across health-related research organizations: A qualitative content analysis.

It is largely taken-for-granted, and sometimes advocated that the same strategies to identify, assess, and manage financial conflicts of interest may also be applied to so-called non-financial conflicts of interest. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of 22 conflict of interest policies from prominent organizations engaged in health-related research to compare and critically analyze the range of policy approaches for managing financial and non-financial interests. We extracted and analyzed policy content using an instrument based on the normative framework for evaluating conflict of interest policy proposed by the Institute of Medicine. Policy authors implicitly applied the same principles and provisions to both financial and non-financial conflicts of interest or failed to specify how they might be treated separately. Provisions related to the identification of "perceived" conflicts of interest, consequences for non-disclosure, ineligibility for participation, and management strategies thus, tended to under-regulate financial and over-regulate non-financial conflicts of interest. Consequently, these approaches may particularly violate principles of proportionality and fairness and risk interference from industry, sometimes intentionally so. Policymakers should strengthen approaches to identification and prevention of financial conflicts of interest and explore alternative approaches to enhancing individuals' accountability for their positions and perspectives.