Conflict of Interest in Science Communication: More than a Financial Issue Report from Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, April 2009

A systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that around 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once (1). Up to 33% admit other questionable practices such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed changes in pre-research protocols or dubious ethical behavior (1). There can be no doubt that discovered cases of research and publication misconduct represent a tip of an iceberg and many cases go unreported (2). Experienced biomedical journal editors are aware of a “rogues’ gallery” of major fraudsters, such as Schoen, Hwang, Sudbo, Poehlman, Singh, and Chandra (3-8). Much more common are the less dramatic, because more subtle but probably more dangerous, examples; these are more dangerous because they remain undiscovered so may feed into meta-analyses and guidelines. A seminar organized by the Esteve Foundation, held in Sitges in April 2009, concentrated on conflicts of interest (COI, sometimes also referred to as Competing Interests, CI), which underlie so much research and publication misconduct. All attendants of the meeting agreed that there were many sources of COI in the general process of scientific communication (Figure 1). The meeting was mainly focused on non-financial COI. Three introductory presentations highlighted some of the topics related to COI in the contemporary scientific publishing enterprise

Conflict of interest in science communication: more than a financial issue. Report from Esteve Foundation discussion group, April 2009

A systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that around 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once. Up to 33% admit other questionable practices such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed changes in pre-research protocols or dubious ethical behavior. There can be no doubt that discovered cases of research and publication misconduct represent a tip of an iceberg and many cases go unreported

Doctors' learning habits: CME activities among Norwegian physicians over the last decade

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Coping with the increasing body of medical knowledge is a main challenge to all doctors. The aim of this study was to investigate self reported reading and learning habits among Norwegian doctors and their subjective ability to keep professionally updated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross sectional survey among a randomised sample of Norwegian doctors was undertaken in 2004 (n = 1005, response rate 71%). A similar study with many identical questions was done in 1993 (n = 1041, response rate 71%) and a comparison of the results was made.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Attending courses/congresses and reading medical literature were reported to be the most important sources of professional information in 2004, just like in 1993. Less time was spent on courses/congresses in 2004 than in 1993, and more time was spent on medical reading. The internet was regarded as useful for their professional life for three out of five, mostly among the younger and least among GPs.</p> <p>Two out of three doctors felt that they could obtain sufficient information for keeping updated in 2004, the same proportion as in 1993. A correlation was found between subjective coping with the information and a high level of continuing medical education (CME)-activities. The information copers had a higher level of job satisfaction than non-copers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Over the last decade Norwegian doctors spend less time on attending courses/congresses and more time on medical reading, while the level of self perceived coping with information has been unchanged. The changing pattern of professional updating may reflect a more general individualistic trend in society. The consistent finding of a correlation between reading and attending courses, subjective coping and job satisfaction gives good reasons for recommending a high level of CME-activities among doctors.</p

Unhappy doctors? A longitudinal study of life and job satisfaction among Norwegian doctors 1994 – 2002

BACKGROUND: General opinion is that doctors are increasingly dissatisfied with their job, but few longitudinal studies exist. This study has been conducted to investigate a possible decline in professional and personal satisfaction among doctors by the turn of the century. METHODS: We have done a survey among a representative sample of 1 174 Norwegian doctors in 2002 (response rate 73 %) and compared the findings with answers to the same questions by (most of) the same doctors in 1994 and 2000. The main outcome measures were self reported levels of life satisfaction and job satisfaction according to the Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS). RESULTS: Most Norwegian doctors are happy. They reported an average life satisfaction of 5.21 in 1994 and 5.32 in 2002 on a scale from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). Half of the respondents reported a very high level of general life satisfaction (a score of 6 or 7) while only one third said they would have reported this high level of satisfaction five years ago. The doctors thought that they had a higher level of job satisfaction than other comparable professional groups. The job satisfaction scale among the same doctors showed a significant increase from 1994 to 2002. Anaesthesiologists and internists reported a lower and psychiatrists and primary care doctors reported a higher level of job satisfaction than the average. CONCLUSION: Norwegian doctors seem to have enjoyed an increasing level of life and job satisfaction rather than a decline over the last decade. This challenges the general impression of unhappy doctors as a general and worldwide phenomenon

Requisitos uniformes para originais submetidos a Revistas Biomédicas

Um pequeno grupo de editores de revistas da área médica reuniu-se informalmente em Vancouver, Colúmbia Britânica, em 1978, para estabelecer diretrizes para o formato dos originais submetidos a suas revistas. Esse grupo ficou conhecido como o Grupo de Vancouver. Seus requisitos para apresentação de originais, que incluíam os formatos de referências bibliográficas desenvolvidos pela Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (National Library of Medicine - NLM), foram publicados pela primeira vez em 1979. O Grupo de Vancouver se expandiu e evoluiu para o Comitê Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors - ICMJE), que se reúne anualmente. Gradualmente, este comitê vem ampliando seus alvos de atenção. O comitê produziu quatro edições prévias dos requisitos uniformes. Ao longo dos anos, surgiram questões que vão além da preparação dos originais. Algumas delas são tratadas agora nos requisitos uniformes; outras são contempladas em pareceres separados. Cada parecer foi publicado em uma revista científica; todos estão reproduzidos no final deste artigo

Norwegian Physicians' Knowledge of and Opinions about Evidence-Based Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: To answer five research questions: Do Norwegian physicians know about the three important aspects of EBM? Do they use EBM methods in their clinical practice? What are their attitudes towards EBM? Has EBM in their opinion changed medical practice during the last 10 years? Do they use EBM based information sources? Design: Cross sectional survey in 2006. Setting: Norway. Participants: 966 doctors who responded to a questionnaire (70% response rate). Results: In total 87% of the physicians mentioned the use of randomised clinical trials as a key aspect of EBM, while 53% of them mentioned use of clinical expertise and only 19% patients' values. 40% of the respondents reported that their practice had always been evidence-based. Many respondents experienced difficulties in using EBM principles in their clinical practice because of lack of time and difficulties in searching EBM based literature. 80% agreed that EBM helps physicians towards better practice and 52% that it improves patients' health. As reasons for changes in medical practice 86% of respondents mentioned medical progress, but only 39% EBM. Conclusions: The results of the study indicate that Norwegian physicians have a limited knowledge of the key aspects of EBM but a positive attitude towards the concept. They had limited experience in the practice of EBM and were rather indifferent to the impact of EBM on medical practice. For solving a patient problem, physicians would rather consult a colleague than searching evidence based resources such as the Cochrane Library

Changes in life expectancy and disease burden in Norway, 1990–2019: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationpublishedVersio