AbstractObjectiveTo understand and report on the nature of patient group interactions with the
pharmaceutical industry from the perspective of patient group
representatives by exploring the range of attitudes towards pharmaceutical
industry sponsorship and how, why, and when interactions occur.DesignEmpirical qualitative interview study informed by ethics theory.SettingAustralian patient groups.Participants27 participants from 23 Australian patient groups that represented diverse
levels of financial engagement with the pharmaceutical industry. Groups were
focused on general health consumer issues or disease specific topics, and
had regional or national jurisdictions.AnalysisAnalytic techniques were informed by grounded theory. Interview transcripts
were coded into data driven categories. Findings were organised into new
conceptual categories to describe and explain the data, and were supported
by quotes.ResultsA range of attitudes towards pharmaceutical industry sponsorship were
identified that are presented as four different types of relationship
between patient groups and the pharmaceutical industry. The dominant
relationship type was of a successful business partnership, and participants
described close working relationships with industry personnel. These
participants acknowledged a potential for adverse industry influence, but
expressed confidence in existing strategies for avoiding industry influence.
Other participants described unsatisfactory or undeveloped relationships,
and some participants (all from general health consumer groups) presented
their groups’ missions as incompatible with the pharmaceutical industry
because of fundamentally opposing interests. Participants reported that
interactions between their patient group and pharmaceutical companies were
more common when companies had new drugs of potential interest to group
members. Patient groups that accepted industry funding engaged in exchanges
of “assets” with companies. Groups received money, information, and advice
in exchange for providing companies with marketing, relationship building
opportunities with key opinion leaders, coordinated lobbying with companies
about drug access and subsidy, assisting companies with clinical trial
recruitment, and enhancing company credibility.ConclusionsAn understanding of the range of views patient groups have about
pharmaceutical company sponsorship will be useful for groups that seek to
identify and manage any ethical concerns about these relationships. Patient
groups that receive pharmaceutical industry money should anticipate they
might be asked for specific assets in return. Selective industry funding of
groups where active product marketing opportunities exist might skew the
patient group sector’s activity towards pharmaceutical industry interests
and allow industry to exert proxy influence over advocacy and subsequent
health policy.
Editorial: Risky business? Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of health consumer groups
