Following recent health scandals in France, the French parliament adopted law n°2011-2012 to regulate ties between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. The law also requires pharmaceutical companies to publicize financial and other benefits given to medical students. In this context, we administered a survey to medical students in France, in an effort to identify priorities for future education regarding conflicts of interest (COI). This web-based survey encompassed knowledge about, training on, personal exposure to, and opinions on COI among preclinical and clinical students as well as residents. Two thousand one hundred and one (2,101) students participated. Although most students (64.6%) believed that they are able to define what a COI is, they failed to correctly identify several situations as COI (receiving a gift, being offered a meal, being invited to a conference). Most students reported feeling inadequately educated about COI (85.2%). Compared to other class levels, residents were more exposed to pharmaceutical sales representatives. This exposure is highly associated to receipt of gifts (OR 14.51, 95% CI 11.67–18.05). Medical students were aware of potential bias induced by COI with respect to drug prescriptions and research, but felt personally immune towards COI. In our survey, personal research performed by students was more likely to be associated with perception of potential bias on prescription for self (but not for others) than attending a lecture on COI. Promulgating laws that regulate ties between physicians/students and the pharmaceutical industry is a mandatory first step. However, complementary strategies should be implemented within medical schools, in particular, specific training about COI in early medical education.
References
[1]
Austad KE, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS (2011) Medical students' exposure to and attitudes about the pharmaceutical industry: a systematic review. PLoS Med 8: e1001037. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001037
[2]
Shnier A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Jutel A, Holloway K (2013) Too few, too weak: conflict of interest policies at Canadian medical schools. PLoS One 8: e68633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068633
[3]
Sierles F, Brodkey A, Cleary L, McCurdy FA, Mintz M, et al. (2009) Relationships between drug company representatives and medical students: medical school policies and attitudes of student affairs deans and third-year medical students. Acad Psychiatry 33: 478–483. doi: 10.1176/appi.ap.33.6.478
[4]
Mullard A (2011) Mediator scandal rocks French medical community. Lancet 377: 890–892. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60334-6
[5]
Benkimoun P (2011) New law introduces tougher rules on drug regulation in France. BMJ 343: d8309. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d8309
[6]
Butler D (2011) France toughens conflict rules. Nature 478: 169. doi: 10.1038/478169a
[7]
Austad KE, Kesselheim AS (2011) Conflict of interest disclosure in early education of medical students. JAMA 306: 991–992. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1233
[8]
Austad KE, Avorn J, Franklin JM, Kowal MK, Campbell EG, et al. (2013) Changing interactions between physician trainees and the pharmaceutical industry: a national survey. J Gen Intern Med 28: 1064–1071. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2361-0
[9]
Kim A, Mumm LA, Korenstein D (2012) Routine conflict of interest disclosure by preclinical lecturers and medical students' attitudes toward the pharmaceutical and device industries. JAMA 308: 2187–2189. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.25315
[10]
King M, Essick C, Bearman P, Ross JS (2013) Medical school gift restriction policies and physician prescribing of newly marketed psychotropic medications: difference-in-differences analysis. BMJ 346: f264. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f264
[11]
Kao AC, Braddock C 3rd, Clay M, Elliott D, Epstein SK, et al. (2011) Effect of educational interventions and medical school policies on medical students' attitudes toward pharmaceutical marketing practices: a multi-institutional study. Acad Med 86: 1454–1462. doi: 10.1097/acm.0b013e3182303895
[12]
Moghimi Y (2006) The “PharmFree” campaign: educating medical students about industry influence. PLoS Med 3: e30. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030030