Survey of practices around pharmaceutical company funding for continuing professional development among medical oncologists and trainees in Australia

• Published in: Internal medicine journal 2017-08, Vol.47 (8), p.888-893
• Main Authors: Lee, Yeh Chen, Kroon, René, Koczwara, Bogda, Haines, Ian, Francis, Kay, Millward, Michael, Kefford, Richard, Olver, Ian, Mileshkin, Linda
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Attitude of Health Personnel; Australia; Bioethics - education; Conflict of Interest; continuing medical industry; continuing professional development; drug industry; Drug Industry - economics; Drug Industry - methods; Education, Medical, Continuing - economics; Education, Medical, Continuing - ethics; Funding; Humans; medical oncologist; Oncologists - economics; Oncologists - education; Oncologists - ethics; pharmaceutical funding support; Pharmaceutical industry; Professional development; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 1444-0903; 1445-5994
• DOI: 10.1111/imj.13482

Background The completion of continuing professional development (CPD) is mandatory for medical oncologists and trainees (MO&T). Pharmaceutical companies may fund some CPD activities, but there is increasing debate about the potential for conflicts of interest (COI). Aim To assess current practices around funding to attend CPD activities. Methods An electronic survey was distributed to Australian MO&T. The survey asked questions about current practices, institutional policies and perceptions about attending CPD funded by pharmaceutical companies. The design looked at comparing responses between MO&T as well as their understanding of and training around institutional and ethical process. Results A total of 157 of 653 (24%) responses was received, the majority from MO (76%). Most CPD activities attended by MO&T were self‐funded (53%), followed by funding from institutions (19%), pharmaceutical companies (16%) and salary award (16%). Most institutions allowed MO&T to receive CPD funding from professional organisations (104/157, 66%) or pharmaceutical companies (90/157, 57%). A minority of respondents (13/157, 8%) reported that the process to use pharmaceutical funds had been considered by an ethics committee. Although 103/157 (66%) had received pharmaceutical funding for CPD, most (109/157, 69%) reported never receiving training about potential COI. The lack of education was more noticeable among trainees (odds ratio (OR) 8.61, P = 0.02). MO&T acknowledged the potential bias towards a pharmaceutical product (P = 0.05) but believed there was adequate separation between themselves and pharmaceutical companies (P < 0.01). Conclusion Majority of CPD attended by MO&T is self‐funded. There is lack of clarity in institutional policies regarding external funding support for CPD activities. Formal education about potential COI is lacking.