The Effect of Different Financial Competing Interest Statements on Readers' Perceptions of Clinical Educational Articles

The BMJ1,065 enrolled

Overview

Financial ties with industry are common among doctors, academics and institutions. This trial aims to investigate the influence of different types of industry-linked activities on readers' perceptions of clinical reviews. Two clinical reviews have been selected on medical topics and study participants (practicing doctors) will be sent one review each. The reviews will be identical except for the inclusion of one of four different permutations of competing interest statements. Participants will be asked to rate the one review they are sent based on the study outcomes (confidence, interest, importance and likeliness to change practice). The study focus is on educational articles as these are intended to guide patient care and convey the authors' interpretation of selected data.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

OTHER

Masking

DOUBLE

Enrollment

1,065

Conditions

Healthy

Interventions

Participants will be randomised to receive 1 of 2 review articles on different topics. For each review there will be 4 groups. Each of the 4 groups will receive an identical version of the review article with the exception of the competing interest statement which will vary depending on group assignment.

Eligibility

Sex: ALLHealthy volunteers:

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: * Practising doctors in the UK who are members of the British Medical Association (BMA) and receive The BMJ will be included. Exclusion Criteria: * BMA members who have opted out of receiving a free copy of The BMJ, public health doctors, consultant oral/dental surgeons, consultants in private practice, retired doctors and student members will be excluded.

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

The Readers' Level of Confidence in the Conclusions Drawn in the Article.

Measured on a single-item 10-point Likert scale from (1) "not at all confident" to (10) "extremely confident". Higher scores indicate more confidence. Min score = 0, max score =10.

Time frame: Outcome measure will be assessed only at the time of the intervention (0 weeks). Readers will be asked to complete the study questionnaire immediately after reading the review article.

Secondary Outcomes

Importance of the Article.

Measured on a single-item 10-point Likert scale from (1) "not at all important" to (10) "extremely important". Higher scores indicate more importance. Min score = 0, max score =10. Readers will be asked to complete the study questionnaire immediately after reading the review article.

Time frame: Outcome measure will be assessed only at the time of the intervention (0 weeks)

Interest in the Article.

Measured on a single-item 10-point Likert scale from (1) "not at all interesting" to (10) "extremely interesting". Higher scores indicate more interest. Min score = 0, max score =10. Readers will be asked to complete the study questionnaire immediately after reading the review article.

Time frame: Outcome measure will be assessed only at the time of the intervention (0 weeks)

Number of Participants Who Are Extremely Likely to Change Practice on the Basis of the Article (Scored a "10"), for Those Currently Treating the Relevant Condition

Measured on a single-item 10-point Likert scale from (1) "not at all likely" to (10) "extremely likely". Higher scores indicate more likely to change practice. Min score = 1, max score =10. Readers asked to complete the study questionnaire immediately after reading the review article.

Time frame: Outcome measure will be assessed only at the time of the intervention (0 weeks)