Search

Conflicts of interest (COI) are considered ubiquitous in many healthcare arrangements, 1 but there is disagreement on how COI should be defined, whether non-financial conflicts deserve attention and the relationship between COI and harm. We conducted a study of Australian healthcare professionals and students to gain a better understanding of the way that COI are understood in practice. In this paper, we outline an empirically derived taxonomy of the understanding of, and attitudes towards, COI. We carried out 25 semistructured interviews with clinicians working in several fields across Australia and held six focus group discussions with medical students in New South Wales. Interviewees and focus groups followed similar question routes investigating participants' understanding of COI and views of management. All data were compared and analysed using a matrix of pre-determined questions. There were, broadly, two views of COI: that COI were potentially harmful and morally compromising and another that saw COI as less serious and easily managed through existing structures. Definitions of COI varied widely and were both financial and non-financial. Causes of COI were, variously, systemic, individual and/or relational. Some participants associated COI with moral wrongdoing, and a variety of potential harms was identified. Views on how COI should be managed were similarly varied. We found considerable heterogeneity in how COI are understood in practice. This has implications for management systems that are currently in place, and we suggest a more sophisticated system for considering and mitigating COI., (© 2017 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Aim: With a number of qualified community practitioner nurse prescribers (CPNPs) not prescribing, this research aimed to understand what influences this behaviour. Design: A qualitative research design. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews, based on the theoretical domains framework (TDF) were conducted with 20 CPNPs. Data collection took place between March‐July 2018 and continued until data saturation was reached. Results: Nine themes inductively explained prescribing behaviour: 1) 'Knowledge and experience'; 2) 'Consultation and communication skills'; 3) 'Professional confidence and identity'; 4) 'Wanting the best outcome'; 5) 'NHS versus patient cost'; 6) 'Emotion‐led decisions'; 7) 'Time allocation'; 8) 'Formulary access' and 9) 'Supporting environment for patient‐centred care'. Themes were then deductively mapped to the TDF and COM‐B. Conclusion: There is an ongoing need to support community practitioner nurse prescribers' 'Capability' to prescribe in terms of knowledge and aquired skills; 'Opportunity' to make prescribing easier, such as access to a wider and up to date nurse formulary alongside effective clinical support; and 'Motivation' to feel confident in prescribing behaviour, highlighting positive patient outcomes while reducing perceived issues such as cost and non‐adherence. Impact: Findings show that Capability, Opportunity and Motivation all influence the decision to prescribe. Those responsible for professional regulation and training should ensure community practitioner nurse prescribers have access to the relevant knowledge, skills and formulary to facilitate their prescribing behaviour. Professional confidence and identity as a prescriber should be encouraged, with acknowledgment of influences such as cost and emotion. An environment that allows for patient‐centred care and the best outcome should be supported, this may mean increasing time allocated to consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Conflicts of interest (CoIs) are considered to be ubiquitous in health care and biomedicine. The disclosure of relevant interests is a first step in managing conflicts, although its usefulness is contested. Although several countries have mandated the public disclosure of doctors' financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, little is known about medical students' understanding of mandatory public disclosure. Methods Six 90-minute focus groups were conducted with medical students in New South Wales, Australia. Participants ranged from first- to final-year students. Students were asked about their understanding and experiences of CoIs and, more specifically, for their views on and experiences of disclosure in medical education, mandatory disclosure and public registers. Qualitative data analysis was based on a framework approach. Results Participants were generally not supportive of mandatory public disclosure of financial relationships with industry, principally because of concerns about privacy, control over disclosure, and others' (mis)interpretations of disclosures. Further, they did not know how to assess the disclosures presented to them as part of their medical education and described a wide range of reactions to disclosed information. Conclusions This study suggests that students are currently not well prepared for mandatory public disclosure of CoIs. The subsequent discussion draws on Bourdieu's doxa to highlight assumptions of altruism in medicine, assumptions that are potentially in tension with recent events that have exposed doctors to moral scrutiny by the public. Medical students could be better prepared for future obligations by encouraging disclosures, and contextualising and helping students to interpret them. Disclosure as a box-ticking exercise is unlikely to achieve goals implied by transparency, but a more reflective approach may assist both scrutinisers and the scrutinised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cervical cancer disproportionately burdens disadvantaged women. Organised cervical screening aims to make cancer prevention available to all women in a population, yet screening uptake and cancer incidence and mortality are strongly correlated with socioeconomic status (SES). Reaching underscreened populations is a stated priority in many screening programs, usually with an emphasis on something like 'equity'. Equity is a poorly defined and understood concept. We aimed to explain experts' perspectives on how cervical screening programs might justifiably respond to 'the underscreened'. Methods: This paper reports on a grounded theory study of cervical screening experts involved in program organisation. Participants were 23 experts from several countries and a range of backgrounds: gynecology; epidemiology; public health; pathology; general practice; policy making. Data were gathered via semi-structured interview and concepts developed through transcript coding and memo writing. Results: Most experts expressed an intuitive commitment to reducing systematic differences in screening participation or cancer outcomes. They took three different implicit positions, however, on what made organised programs justifiable with respect to underscreened populations. These were: 1) accepting that population screening is likely to miss certain disenfranchised groups for practical and cultural reasons, and focusing on maximising mainstream reach; 2) identifying and removing barriers to screening; and 3) providing parallel tailored screening services that attended to different cultural needs. Positions tended to fall along country of practice lines. Conclusions: Experts emphasised the provision of opportunity for underscreened populations to take up screening. A focus on opportunity appeared to rely on tacit premises not supported by evidence: that provision of meaningful opportunity leads to increased uptake, and that increased uptake of an initial screening test by disadvantaged populations would decrease cervical cancer incidence and mortality. There was little attention to anything other than the point of testing, or the difficulties disadvantaged women can have in accessing follow up care. The different approaches to 'improving equity' taken by participants are differently justified, and differently justifiable, but none attend directly to the broader conditions of disadvantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]