Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review

Abstract

of corporations and their adverse influence on public health, an assessment of industry funding to humanitarian assistance is necessary to identify potential violations and harms. Methods: The research explores the experiences and views of a sample of humanitarian agencies in Lebanon which serve refugee populations about corporate funding and influences on their programs. In-depth interviews with international and local humanitarian agency representatives in Lebanon were conducted and analyzed by thematic analysis. Results: Findings indicate perceived advantages with financial assistance , flexible agendas and mutual learning. Meanwhile, challenges fall in project coordination, implementation, and the lack of attention of the private sector to the work ethics with vulnerable populations. Also, this collaboration could impact refugees positively or negatively depending on the type of corporations, their branding and how they are perceived by the populations served. Organizations trust that their processes of detection and reporting are an impervious firewall against conflicts of interest. Conclusions: Corporate power expressed through funding to humanitarian agencies may influence the decision making and the implementation of the programs for humanitarian assistance. The study highlights the need for critical thinking about corporate funding, and creating opportunities for discussion about this issue for humanitarian agencies. Key messages: Industry conflicts of interest on public health are well-established, but understudied in humanitarian assistance programs. Corporate funding for humanitarian assistance may hide potential conflicts of interest for the corporation. Background: Patient groups play an important role in health care and policy. Concerns have been raised about the financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups, because of potential threats to the groups' independence. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise studies that explored pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (from inception to January 2018). We included observational studies reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups which disclosed information about this funding; association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. We carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessed study quality. Results: 26 cross-sectional studies were included. Fifteen studies assessed the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). The proportion of patient