Bias in the Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Policies

Zachariah Sharek; Robert E. Schoen; George Loewenstein

doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00670.x

Extract

A wide range of medical institutions have developed and implemented policies to mitigate the adverse consequences of conflicts of interest. These newly implemented policies, which include regulation of industry contact with physicians and hospitals, controls on gifts from industry, and greater transparency in industry sponsored activities, have generated considerable controversy.

Formulating and evaluating policies in a neutral, unbiased fashion can be difficult for those personally affected. When people have a stake in an issue, they tend to process information in a selective fashion that supports their personal interests, a phenomenon known as “motivated reasoning.” When decision makers with preexisting opinions are exposed to information, they are inclined to selectively use the information to arrive at conclusions that justify their prior beliefs. When confronted with information that contradicts existing views, people evaluate it with greater skepticism. Additionally, once decision makers have reached a decision, they are likely to evaluate subsequent evidence in a biased manner that supports their decision.

References

Brennan, T. A. et al. , “Health Industry Practices That Create Conflicts of Interest: A Policy Proposal for Academic Medical Centers,” JAMA 295, no. 4 (2006): 429–433.; Kassirer, J. P., On the Take: How America's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) Stossel, T. P., “Regulating Academic-Industrial Research Relationships – Solving Problems or Stifling Progress?” New England Journal of Medicine 353, no. 10 (2005): 1060–1055; Duvall, D. G., “Conflict of Interest or Ideological Divide: The Need for Ongoing Collaboration between Physicians and Industry,” Current Medical Research and Opinion 22, no. 9 (2006): 1807–1812.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lord, C. G. Ross, L. Lepper, M. R., “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, no. 11 (1979): 2098–2109; Kunda, Z., “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 108, no. 3 (1990): 480–498.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ditto, P. Lopez, D., “Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, no. 4 (1992): 568–584.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gilovich, T., How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reasoning in Everyday Life (New York: Free Press, 1991).Google Scholar

Simon, D. Krawczyk, D. C. Holyoak, K. J., “Construction of Preferences by Constraint Satisfaction,” Psychological Science 15, no. 5 (2004): 331–336.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pronin, E. Lin, D. Y. Ross, L., “The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, no. 3 (2002): 369–381; Pronin, E. Gilovich, T. Ross, L., “Objectivity in the Eye of the Beholder: Divergent Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others,” Psychological Review 111, no. 3 (2004): 781–799.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cain, D. M. Detsky, A. S., “Everyone's a Little Bit Biased (Even Physicians),” JAMA 299, no. 24 (2008): 2893–2895; Dana, J. Loewenstein, G., “A Social Science Perspective on Gifts to Physicians from Industry,” JAMA 290, no. 2 (2003): 252–255; Choudhry, N. K. Stelfox, H. T. Detsky, A. S., “Relationships between Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Pharmaceutical Industry,” JAMA 287, no. 5 (2002): 612–617.CrossRef Google Scholar

Campbell, E. G. Louis, K. S. Blumenthal, D., “Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth: Corporate Gifts Supporting Life Sciences Research,” JAMA 279, no. 13 (1998): 995–999; Wazana, A., “Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Is a Gift Ever Just a Gift?” JAMA 283, no. 3 (2000): 373–380; Chren, M. M. Landefeld, C. S., “Physicians' Behavior and Their Interactions with Drug Companies: A Controlled Study of Physicians Who Requested Additions to a Hospital Drug Formulary,” JAMA 271, no. 9 (1994): 684–689; Campbell, E. G. et al. , “A National Survey of Physician-Industry Relationships,” New England Journal of Medicine 356, no. 17 (2007): 1742–1750; Boyd, E. A. Bero, L., “Assessing Faculty Financial Relationships with Industry: A Case Study,” JAMA 284, no. 17 (2000): 2209–2214; Bigel, K. S., “The Ethical Orientation of Financial Planners Who Are Engaged in Investment Activities: A Comparison of United States Practitioners Based on Professionalization and Compensation Sources,” Journal of Business Ethics 28, no. 4 (2000): 323–337; Boatright, J. R., “Conflicts of Interest in Financial Services,” Business and Society Review 105, no. 2 (2000): 201–219.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rick, S. I. Cryder, C. E. Loewenstein, G., “Tightwads and Spendthrifts,” Journal of Consumer Research 34, no. 6 (2008): 767–782.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boyd, E. A. Lipton, S. Bero, L. A., “Implementation of Financial Disclosure Policies to Manage Conflicts of Interest,” Health Affairs 23, no. 23 (2004): 206–2014.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barnes, M. Florencio, P. S., “Financial Conflicts of Interest in Human Subjects Research: The Problem of Institutional Conflicts,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 30, no. 3 (2002): 390–402.CrossRef Google Scholar

Institute of Medicine, Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2009), available at <http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/47464/65721.aspx> (last visited April 2, 2012).+(last+visited+April+2,+2012).>Google Scholar

Crossref Citations

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

Roekevisch, Evelien Spuls, Phyllis Ira Kuester, Denise Limpens, Jacqueline and Schmitt, Jochen 2014. Efficacy and safety of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A systematic review. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Vol. 133, Issue. 2, p. 429.

Küster, Denise Spuls, Phyllis I Flohr, Carsten Smith, Catherine Hooft, Lotty Deckert, Stefanie Schwennesen, Thomas Roekevisch, Evelien and Schmitt, Jochen 2015. Effects of systemic immunosuppressive therapies for moderate-to-severe eczema in children and adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,

Ochoa, Rolando and Graycar, Adam 2016. Tackling Conflicts of Interest: Policy Instruments in Different Settings. Public Integrity, Vol. 18, Issue. 1, p. 83.

Klein, Nadav and Epley, Nicholas 2017. Less Evil Than You: Bounded Self-Righteousness in Character Inferences, Emotional Reactions, and Behavioral Extremes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 43, Issue. 8, p. 1202.

Bruton, Samuel V and Sacco, Donald F 2018. What’s it to me? Self-interest and evaluations of financial conflicts of interest. Research Ethics, Vol. 14, Issue. 4, p. 1.

Goldberg, Daniel S. Lederer, David J. MacKenzie, Ellen J. Moss, Marc Samet, Jonathan M. Schumacker, Paul T. Wedzicha, Jadwiga A. and Wynia, Matthew K. 2018. The Phillip Morris Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. A Cause for Concern. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, Vol. 15, Issue. 11, p. 1269.

Gneezy, Uri Saccardo, Silvia Serra-Garcia, Marta and van Veldhuizen, Roel 2020. Bribing the Self. Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 120, Issue. , p. 311.

Azad, Meghan B. Nickel, Nathan C. Bode, Lars Brockway, Meredith Brown, Amy Chambers, Christina Goldhammer, Camie Hinde, Katie McGuire, Michelle Munblit, Daniel Patel, Aloka L. Pérez‐Escamilla, Rafael Rasmussen, Kathleen M. Shenker, Natalie Young, Bridget E. and Zuccolo, Luisa 2020. Breastfeeding and the origins of health: Interdisciplinary perspectives and priorities. Maternal & Child Nutrition,

Article contents

Bias in the Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Policies

Extract

Access options

References

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

Article contents

Bias in the Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Policies

Extract

Access options

References

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Send article to Kindle

Send article to Dropbox

Send article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests