Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice

M. Rodzinka, Annabel Seebohm, Eugene Pozniak, L. Mosch, Lara De Luca, J. McArdle, R. Griebenow, Margarita Velcheva
{"title":"Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice","authors":"M. Rodzinka, Annabel Seebohm, Eugene Pozniak, L. Mosch, Lara De Luca, J. McArdle, R. Griebenow, Margarita Velcheva","doi":"10.1080/21614083.2019.1685771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) representing the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe, introduced three codes of conduct between 2007 and 2013, which had a common goal of self-regulating interactions with healthcare professionals and patient organisations. This former set of rules was appreciated as a first self-regulatory step, although self-regulation itself is still considered by many stakeholders as insufficient to provide thorough transparency. EFPIA agreed to replace the separate codes with a new, consolidated EFPIA Code of Practice. The consolidated Code was broadened to include a new section on medical education that outlines the scope of member companies' engagement in “medical education activities?. This new section is controversial as it explicitly confirms that EFPIA members can be involved in medical education. In our view “independent Medical Education“ per se prevents industry from “organising“ events, i.e. industry must not influence content, presentation, choice of lecturers or publication of results. What is more, only events respecting this key principle (amongst others) can be recognised for purposes of continuing medical education/continuing professional development (CME/CPD). A substantial portion of the medical education is currently funded by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. This practice carries a significant risk to public and personal health, especially if it is not adequately safeguarded by a high standard of accreditation. We are most concerned by the fact that EFPIA, representing the pharmaceutical industry, is trying to broaden the approach to medical education, to include activities that are not independently evaluated as free from undue influence and conflicts of interest. We believe that in order to preserve scientific integrity and independence, pharmaceutical companies must not be granted the right to influence the content of medical education.","PeriodicalId":87300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European CME","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21614083.2019.1685771","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2019.1685771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) representing the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe, introduced three codes of conduct between 2007 and 2013, which had a common goal of self-regulating interactions with healthcare professionals and patient organisations. This former set of rules was appreciated as a first self-regulatory step, although self-regulation itself is still considered by many stakeholders as insufficient to provide thorough transparency. EFPIA agreed to replace the separate codes with a new, consolidated EFPIA Code of Practice. The consolidated Code was broadened to include a new section on medical education that outlines the scope of member companies' engagement in “medical education activities?. This new section is controversial as it explicitly confirms that EFPIA members can be involved in medical education. In our view “independent Medical Education“ per se prevents industry from “organising“ events, i.e. industry must not influence content, presentation, choice of lecturers or publication of results. What is more, only events respecting this key principle (amongst others) can be recognised for purposes of continuing medical education/continuing professional development (CME/CPD). A substantial portion of the medical education is currently funded by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. This practice carries a significant risk to public and personal health, especially if it is not adequately safeguarded by a high standard of accreditation. We are most concerned by the fact that EFPIA, representing the pharmaceutical industry, is trying to broaden the approach to medical education, to include activities that are not independently evaluated as free from undue influence and conflicts of interest. We believe that in order to preserve scientific integrity and independence, pharmaceutical companies must not be granted the right to influence the content of medical education.
监管医学教育中的偏见——对制药行业更新的EFPIA实践准则的反应
欧洲制药工业和协会联合会(EFPIA)代表在欧洲运营的制药行业,在2007年至2013年期间引入了三个行为准则,这些准则的共同目标是与医疗保健专业人员和患者组织进行自我调节。前一套规则被认为是自我监管的第一步,尽管许多利益相关者仍认为自我监管本身不足以提供彻底的透明度。EFPIA同意用新的、统一的EFPIA业务守则取代单独的守则。《综合守则》得到扩大,增加了一个关于医学教育的新章节,概述了成员公司参与"医学教育活动"的范围。这一新章节是有争议的,因为它明确确认EFPIA成员可以参与医学教育。我们认为,"独立医学教育"本身阻止工业界"组织"活动,即工业界不得影响内容、形式、讲师的选择或结果的发表。此外,只有尊重这一关键原则的事件(除其他外)才能被认可为继续医学教育/继续专业发展(CME/CPD)的目的。目前,医学教育的很大一部分是由制药和医疗器械行业资助的。这种做法对公众和个人健康构成重大风险,特别是在没有高标准认证的情况下。我们最关切的是,代表制药业的欧洲医药协会正试图扩大医学教育的方法,将未经独立评估认为没有不正当影响和利益冲突的活动纳入其中。我们认为,为了维护科学的完整性和独立性,绝不能赋予制药公司影响医学教育内容的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信