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

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Healthy

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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.

Treatment and study plan

Variations of financial competing interest statements

Other

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.

Primary outcomes

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

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.

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.

Secondary outcomes

Importance of the Article.

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

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.
Interest in the Article.

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

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.
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

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

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.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

The BMJ

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Randomised Controlled Trial to Measure the Effect of Different Financial Competing Interest Statements on Readers' Perceptions of Clinical Educational Articles

Important dates

Study start: 2016
Primary completion: 2016
Study completion: 2016
First posted: Sep 14, 2015
Registry last updated: Jun 12, 2019

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.

Completed