首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Academic Ethics >The Scope of Inclusion of Academic Conflict of Interest Policies
【24h】

The Scope of Inclusion of Academic Conflict of Interest Policies

机译:学术利益冲突政策的纳入范围

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

We analyzed whether institutions training physicians and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) have conflict of interest policies (COIP) specific to pharmaceutical relationships and if present do such policies extend to students, other clinicians, personnel, sites, and curriculum. The 2014 Association of Academic Health Centers list of US members (n=92) identified 65 eligible universities. A 10-item web-based survey was distributed to potential participants. Initial contact was to institutional Directors of Nursing Research, with sequential contacts if no response to Nursing Deans or Department Chairs, Clinical Placement Coordinators, Institutional Research Board Directors, Bioethics Departments, and Legal Counsel. Contacts received 2 email reminders before initiating the next level of contact. Reminder postcards were sent to Dean or Department Chair non-responders. 20 institutions fully completed the survey, a 30% response. Most (90%) reported COIP for continuing education or industry funded speaking but 40.5% were "unsure" or "unclear" whether this included curriculum. 55.6% were "unsure" or "did not know" if preceptors were included. Website confirmation noted COIP most frequently covered research funding or trials (95%) or gifts and meals (90%). Policies least frequently covered curriculum (10%). 25% included all clinicians in their COIP. No institution covered clinical preceptors unless they were employees. Gaps exist in knowledge of COIP and their scope related to the education of nurse prescribers. While most policies cover research funding or trials in accordance with federal law, they are not explicit or known regarding their extension to nonphysician clinicians, curriculum, or preceptors.
机译:我们分析了培训医师和高级执业注册护士(APRN)的机构是否具有针对药物关系的利益冲突政策(COIP),如果存在的话,这些政策是否适用于学生,其他临床医生,人员,场所和课程。 2014年美国学术健康中心协会名单(n = 92)确定了65所合格大学。向潜在参与者分发了一项基于网络的10项调查。最初的联系对象是护理研究的机构主管,如果对护理院长或系主任,临床安置协调员,机构研究委员会主任,生物伦理学部门和法律顾问没有回应,则应进行连续联系。在开始下一级别的联系之前,联系人已收到2条电子邮件提醒。提醒明信片已发送给教务长或系主任的未答复者。 20个机构完全完成了调查,答复率为30%。大多数(90%)报告了继续教育或行业资助的演讲的COIP,但40.5%的人“不确定”或“不清楚”是否包括课程。 55.6%的人认为“不确定”或“不知道”是否包含了受体。网站确认指出,COIP最常覆盖研究资金或试验(95%)或礼物和膳食(90%)。政策最不常涉及课程(10%)。 25%将所有临床医生纳入其COIP。除非是雇员,否则任何机构都不会涵盖临床受体。在COIP知识及其与护士处方教育有关的范围方面存在差距。尽管大多数政策都涵盖了根据联邦法律的研究经费或试验,但对于将其扩展到非医师临床医生,课程或概念方面,尚无明确或未知的信息。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号