Solutions

Solutions powered by
Learn More.
Frame 586 (1)

Quality Manager formerly known as abaqis®

Mitigate risk and elevate your quality of care. Improving both clinical and business outcomes starts with a smarter, more integrated approach to regulatory training, continuing education and quality management.

Learn More

NEW TO THE STORE

hStream Content Marketplace

Connecting you to the Best Content. Access to 75 Partners and 35,000+ Courses in our Industry-Leading Marketplace. Streamline content purchasing, updates, hosting and connectivity for your organizational needs.

NurseGrid Learn

Online store for Clinical Learners. Individual CE Credit and industry products for Clinical Learners are now available through NurseGrid Learn (Beta). Explore our robust collection of courses that provides an unparalleled level of flexibility and choice.

Practitioner Courses

Meet the DEA's new requirement under the Medication Access and Training Expansion (MATE) Act in an online, high-quality and self-paced 8-hour DEA MATE Act course specifically designed for practitioners, including Physicians, PAs, NPs, Pharmacists, Dentists and others.

LATEST & POPULAR

BLOG

Join Us at Thrive24: The Ultimate HealthStream Credentialing User Group Conference!
BLOG

Gen Z Enters the Workforce: How Healthcare Can Adapt Training Programs for the Next Generation
BLOG

Telehealth: From Pandemic Tool to Preferred Option
On-Demand Webinar

State of the Industry: What’s Next for Healthcare Quality & Safety in 2024?
CUSTOMER STORY

Quantifiable results highlight switch to jane®
ARTICLE

10 Trends for 2024: Absorbing New Technology, Facing New Realities, and Solving Old Problems

< HealthStream Resources

A New Way to Think About Conflicts of Interest in Medicine

April 1, 2021
April 1, 2021

By Bill Sacks, Vice President, COI Product Management, HCCS - A HealthStream Company

On August 31st Health Economist Austin Frakt published an article in in the New York Times “TheUpshot” column suggesting “A New Way to Think About Conflicts of Interest in Medicine”. This article expanded on a blog post he had written two months earlier suggesting that while moral responses to conflicts of interest were natural, (for example, decrying the “corruption” of some researchers or the “perversion” of the research process resulting from industry financing of research), these responses were impeding thinking on creative solutions to the problem.

Frakt points out that human beings will often over- or under-correct their perceptions based on real or perceived conflicts of interest. Some patients, upon hearing that their doctor receives funding from a pharmaceutical company will question his or her objectivity regarding that company’s drugs. “To other people,” he notes, “the disclosure of industry ties might be interpreted as signs of honesty and expertise.” Disclosure alone is no panacea.

The author’s main point is that while efforts to identify and manage financial conflicts are laudable, they represent only one part of a much needed larger solution. Frakt believes that only more rigorous oversight of scientific research will restore public confidence, and over time mitigate concerns over conflicts of interest. Frakt argues for several strategies aimed at improving the scientific method of clinical research, regardless of the funding source, to eliminate bias and increase reproducibility.  He suggests:

  1. Registration of trials and reporting of all registered analysis (or clear metrics of the extent to which they are not reported);
  2. Archiving of trials’ analytical data files (see BMJ‘s Open Data campaign and GlaxoSmithKlein‘s commitment to provide access to anonymized patient-level data);
  3. Archiving of statistical programming (reproducible research); and
  4. Expert evaluation of study methods by an individual or individuals without conflicts of interest 

Frakt concludes by saying: “Good science is how we avoid fooling ourselves, even when we have incentive to do so, financial and otherwise. The true merits of a study stem from its design and methods, so long as they are fully and transparently reported — and there are many ways we could do a better job of that.”

So much effort is expended, these days, collecting disclosures of financial interests from providers and comparing them to reported payments made by pharmaceutical and device manufacturers. This article points out that the issues we seek to address are bigger than we often admit to ourselves, and our solutions are only the first step in the effort to reduce and eventually eliminate conflicts of interest.