Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
Article CommentaryCommentary

Industry involvement in continuing medical education

Time to say no

Sheryl Spithoff
Canadian Family Physician August 2014, 60 (8) 694-696;
Sheryl Spithoff
Family physician and addiction medicine physician at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sheryl.spithoff@wchospital.ca
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The pharmaceutical and medical device industries fund a substantial portion of the continuing medical education (CME) of physicians in Canada. Along with this financial support come avenues for industry influence.1,2 Continuing medical education organizers are often under overt pressure to design sessions and choose faculty3 to attract industry funding. Organizers might also be affected by more subtle tactics. Research in social science demonstrates that the recipient of a gift feels a sense of obligation that is often subconscious.4

This might cause CME organizers to respond in predictable and accommodating ways to sponsorship from industry. The conflicts of interest CME faculty (organizers and speakers) have with industry likely also have an effect on CME content.5 Whatever the mechanism, CME with industry involvement has a narrower range of topics and more drug-related content than CME without direct industry involvement.6 Even when funding is unrestricted (course content and faculty are determined by the program director, not industry), the content favours the sponsor’s product.7

Few dispute that the bias introduced by industry involvement in CME affects physician prescribing.8 And, as stated by the US Senate Finance Committee in 2007, “it seems unlikely that this sophisticated industry would spend such large sums on an enterprise but for the expectation that the expenditures will be recouped by increased sales.”9 The real question is whether industry’s influence is harmful. Most agree that industry’s primary objective of increasing sales10 creates an inherent tension with the physician’s goal of getting the best medical information.

Some physicians have argued that despite this conflict, they can still accept the benefits of industry funding; they have the ability to accurately detect bias and distil out truth. However, studies contradict this. Physicians who interact more often with industry have poorer prescribing habits and are less likely to follow guidelines.11 Some of the most damning evidence of harm comes from a retrospective analysis of the “OxyContin crisis” by Van Zee.12 The analysis clearly demonstrates how industry influence over physician prescribing can have devastating outcomes. In 1996, Purdue’s launch of OxyContin involved the creation of a speakers’ bureau with thousands of physicians and, between 1996 and 2002, the sponsorship of more than 20 000 educational programs. The educational sessions were driven and funded by the pharmaceutical company, led by industry-sponsored physicians, and accredited by professional bodies. Purdue achieved unprecedented success. In the United States, OxyContin sales grew from $48 million (US) in 1996 to almost $1.1 billion (US) in 2000. However, the educational information Purdue disseminated on OxyContin misrepresented the risk of addiction and abuse.13–15 The unprecedented success was accompanied by an epidemic of OxyContin-related harms. Unfortunately, the OxyContin “commercial triumph, public health tragedy” story is not unique; there are many other reports of poor patient outcomes as a result of industry involvement in CME in other drug classes.16

As a result, many are calling for a ban on industry sponsorship of CME and a divestment of conflicts of interest from CME faculty.17 To move forward with these changes, academic centres and professional medical associations (PMAs) are looking to their physician members for support and direction. Unfortunately, it might be difficult for physicians to see how their interactions with industry can adversely influence them. When researchers presented physicians with proposed conflict-of-interest regulations that would apply to them, they were much more resistant than when the identical scenario referred to financial planners. Financial planners showed the same self-interest in this study; they were more likely to oppose conflict-of-interest regulations when the scenario referred to financial planners than when it referred to physicians.18 Studies on decision making from the social science field indicate that this self-interest is unintentional and unconscious. Even when individuals are instructed about self-serving bias and are motivated to remain objective, they are unable to do so.19

Where we are in Canada

Ongoing medical education is clearly essential for physicians. However, unlike for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, there are no streams of revenue for CME in Canada. Industry, with a fistful of money, has eagerly stepped into this void. At present, industry funds accredited CME in Canada and contributes to organizations that produce CME programs for hospitals, PMAs, and universities. Financial conflicts of interest with industry are likely prevalent among Canadian CME faculty as well.20

Industry is also involved in CME development in Canada. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) permits industry to co-develop CME with the physician organization, but prohibits industry representatives from sitting on scientific planning committees.21 The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) has recently changed its policy; its 2012 fall continuing professional development newsletter stated that, starting in January 2013, industry would not be permitted to attend CME content planning meetings nor be allowed to “have any role” in CME program content development.22 The current CFPC guidelines reflect this statement.23 University policies adhere to the guidelines from the colleges and allow industry involvement in CME development but prohibit industry representatives from sitting on the scientific planning committees. University policies also permit industry to direct unrestricted funds to specific CME events.24–26

What should be done

Industry involvement in CME

Ideally, Canadian academic centres, hospitals, and PMAs should ban all industry involvement (including funding) in CME. Several American institutions have taken this route with success, including the University of Michigan, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, the Kaiser Permanente in the Mid-Atlantic States region, and the Oregon Academy of Family Physicians.27,28

At a minimum, Canadian organizations should do what some American institutions have done and only allow industry to contribute unrestricted funding to a central pool within the larger organization.29 An independent medical body disperses the pool of money to pay for CME events. Industry is not allowed to participate in the planning, development, or delivery of CME. Although many find this “firewall” approach appealing (and one study found it to be effective6), it might still engender subconscious reciprocity.4 As well, organizations could feel pressure to adopt industry-friendly policies and programs to attract funding.9

The CFPC and the RCPSC should implement a 5-year plan to only accredit CME programs that do not have funding from industry. As a first step, the colleges should prohibit industry involvement in the planning, development, and delivery of CME, not just the educational component. They should explicitly state in their guidelines that industry is not permitted to suggest speakers or content to the planning committee.

Faculty conflicts of interest

The simplest solution is to prohibit physicians with financial conflicts of interest from planning or teaching CME. The US Accreditation Council on Continuing Medical Education did recommend this in 2003. However, the proposal died early on, as many believed this would “empty lecterns and podia across the continent,”30 and regulators continued to focus on transparency. Unfortunately, disclosure has substantial limitations and might increase bias,31–33 so divestment is back in the spotlight. Some American institutions have moved forward on this; 44 medical schools now “ban or severely restrict” faculty participation in speaker bureaus.34 Harvard University has set financial limits for conflicts of interest for its faculty.35 Many schools also limit and regulate faculty consulting relationships with industry. Canadian academic institutions, hospitals, and PMAs should follow the lead of these institutions and ban faculty from participating in speaker bureaus. They should also set financial limits on faculty conflicts of interest and regulate consulting relationships. The CFPC and the RCPSC should develop 5-year plans to only accredit CME programs that have faculty without personal income from industry.36 A goal of zero payments is important because even a small financial payoff can distort a recipient’s judgment.19 They should also develop a policy to address financial conflicts of interest that fall outside personal payments from industry, such as industry funding of a physician’s research. And finally, they need a policy to address non-financial conflicts of interest (personal, political, ideological, religious, etc) for CME faculty.37

Maintaining CME without industry support

Physicians frequently express concern that we will not be able to maintain the quality and quantity of CME without industry support. To address this, some have suggested “rethinking continuing medical education.”38 The large conferences at expensive venues are a poor way to deliver CME. The most effective (and more cost-effective) CME is held in small groups, with practice audits, ongoing support, and follow-up. Organizations could further reduce costs by offering CME in local community hospitals and clinics or online. As well, professional associations, such as the CFPC, could develop educational objectives or a standard curriculum. Currently, the development of CME is haphazard and is often determined by industry funding. Implementing these suggestions would lead to higher-quality CME and cost savings. Second, programs will have to find alternative sources of funding. Physicians could pay more in fees. The pharmaceutical and medical device industry could pay a CME tax. For instance, France levies a 1.6% tax on industry to fund CME programs.39

The public health care system could cover more costs. At present, the public already pays the higher drug costs passed on from industry sponsorship of CME. Public funding of CME might eventually lead to drug cost savings for the public. With the loss of industry influence, doctors will begin to prescribe more appropriately. They will eschew more expensive “me-too” drugs in favour of the cheaper, older medications with proven outcomes and established safety profiles.

Conclusion

The involvement of the pharmaceutical and medical device industries in the provision of CME has a harmful influence on physician prescribing practices. Current measures to limit industry’s influence are inadequate. Academic centres, hospitals, and PMAs need to demonstrate leadership. They should start by limiting industry involvement in CME and restricting faculty conflicts of interest. The RCPSC and the CFPC should develop a 5-year plan to only accredit CME with no industry funding and with faculty with no conflicts of interest. Continuing medical education can be funded through alternative means such as physician payments and public funding. Overall CME costs can be reduced, and delivery improved, with a change in the way CME is approached. Ultimately, limits on industry involvement will improve physician prescribing and patient outcomes, at a lower cost to the public.

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Cet article se trouve aussi en français à la page 700.

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • The opinions expressed in commentaries are those of the authors. Publication does not imply endorsement by the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Morris L,
    2. Taitsman JK
    . The agenda for continuing medical education—limiting industry’s influence. N Engl J Med 2009;361(25):2478-82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Steinman MA,
    2. Baron RB
    . Is continuing medical education a drug promotion tool? Yes [Debates]. Can Fam Physician 2007;53(10):1650-3. (Eng), 1654–7 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Moynihan R
    . Doctors’ education: the invisible influence of drug company sponsorship. BMJ 2008;336(7641):416-7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Katz D,
    2. Caplan AL,
    3. Merz JF
    . All gifts large and small: toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. Am J Bioeth 2010;10(10):11-7.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Wang AT,
    2. McCoy CP,
    3. Murad MH,
    4. Montori VM
    . Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review. BMJ 2010;18(1):c1344.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Katz HP,
    2. Goldfinger SE,
    3. Fletcher SW
    . Academia-industry collaboration in continuing medical education: description of two approaches. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002;22(1):43-54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bowman MA
    . The impact of drug company funding on the content of continuing medical education. Mobius 1986;6(1):66-9.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Tabas JA,
    2. Boscardin C,
    3. Jacobsen DM,
    4. Steinman MA,
    5. Volberding PA,
    6. Baron RB
    . Clinician attitudes about commercial support of continuing medical education: results of a detailed survey. Arch Intern Med 2011;171(9):840-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. US Senate Finance Committee
    . Committee staff report to the chairman and ranking member: use of educational grants by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2007.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Gøtzsche PC
    . Big pharma often commits corporate crime, and this must be stopped. BMJ 2012;345:e8462.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Spurling GK,
    2. Mansfield PR,
    3. Montgomery BD,
    4. Lexchin J,
    5. Doust J,
    6. Othman N,
    7. et al
    . Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians’ prescribing: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2010;7(10):e1000352.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Van Zee A
    . The promotion and marketing of OxyContin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy. Am J Public Health 2009;99(2):221-7. Epub 2008 Sep 17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Meier B
    . In guilty plea, OxyContin maker to pay $600 million. New York Times. 2007 May 10. Available from: www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web.html. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
  14. 14.
    1. Persaud N
    . Questionable content of an industry-supported medical school lecture series: a case study. J Med Ethics 2014;40(6):414-6. Epub 2013 Jun 11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Jovey RD
    , editor. Managing pain. The Canadian healthcare professional’s reference. Toronto, ON: Healthcare & Financial Publishing, Rogers Media; 2002.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Carlat D
    . Diagnosis: conflict of interest. New York Times. 2007 Jun 13. Available from: www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/opinion/13carlat.html. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kerridge I
    . Pharmaceutical industry support for continuing medical education: is it time to disengage? J Paediatr Child Health 2011;47(10):690-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sharek Z,
    2. Schoen RE,
    3. Loewenstein G
    . Bias in the evaluation of conflict of interest policies. J Law Med Ethics 2012;40(2):368-82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Dana J,
    2. Loewenstein G
    . A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA 2003;290(2):252-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Neuman J,
    2. Korenstein D,
    3. Ross JS,
    4. Keyhani S
    . Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: cross sectional study. BMJ 2011;343:d5621.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
    . Guidelines and process for co-development with a nonaccredited physician organization. Ottawa, ON: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; Available from: www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/members/cpd/cpd_accreditation/group_learning/guidelines_nonphysician_organization. Accessed 2013 May 19.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Department of Continuing Professional Development, College of Family Physicians of Canada
    . Commercial involvement and program development. CPD in Focus 2012;4(5):2.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. College of Family Physicians of Canada
    . A guide to Mainpro accreditation. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2014. Available from: www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/CPD/A%20Guide%20to%20Mainpro%20Accreditation.pdf. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Continuing Education Program
    . Policy on support of continuing education events from commercial sources. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University Health Sciences; 2007. Available from: http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/conted/documents/PolicySupportofCEEventsfromCommercialSources10.pdf. Accessed 2014 Jun 2.
  25. 25.
    1. Office of Continuing Education and Professional Development
    . Policy on sponsorship from commercial sources of University of Toronto accredited continuing education activities. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine; 2012. Available from: www.cpd.utoronto.ca/brochures/Sponsorship-Policy-2012.pdf. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Faculty of Medicine, Division of Continuing Professional Development
    . Guidelines for commercial support of continuing medical education/continuing professional development activities. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia; 2009. Available from: http://ubccpd.ca/sites/ubccpd.ca/files/UBCCPD-Guidelines-for-Commercial-Support.pdf. Accessed 2014 Jul 15.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Carlat DJ
    . University of Michigan bans industry funded CME. Newburyport, MA: The Carlat Psychiatry Blog [website]; 2010 Jun 28. Available from: http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.ca/2010/06/university-of-michigan-bans-industry.html. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
  28. 28.↵
    1. Carlat DJ
    . Oregon Academy of Family Physicians to industry: hands off our CME! Newburyport, MA: The Carlat Psychiatry Blog [website]; 2008 Mar 11. Available from: http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.ca/2008/03/oregon-academy-of-family-physicians-to.html. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
  29. 29.↵
    1. Richter R
    . School restricts industry funding of CME courses. Stanford Medicine News Center 2008 Oct 9. Available from: http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2008/09/school-restricts-industry-funding-of-cme-courses.html. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
  30. 30.↵
    1. Marlow B
    . The future sponsorship of CME in Canada: industry, government, physicians or a blend? CMAJ 2004;171(2):150-1.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. De Melo-Martín I,
    2. Intemann K
    . How do disclosure policies fail? Let us count the ways. FASEB J 2009;23(6):1638-42. Epub 2009 Jan 28.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.
    1. Kassirer JP
    . Disclosure’s failings: what is the alternative? Acad Med 2009;84(9):1180-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Loewenstein G,
    2. Sah S,
    3. Cain DM
    . The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. JAMA 2012;307(7):669-70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. American Medical Student Association [press release]
    . Majority of U.S. medical schools have strong pharmaceutical conflict-of-interest policies: AMSA survey to review policies at U.S. teaching hospitals next. Sterling, VA: American Medical Student Association; 2013. Available from: www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/About/News/040913.aspx. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
  35. 35.↵
    Medical school revises COI policy. Harvard Gazette. 2010 Jul 21. Available from: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/07/medical-school-revises-coi-policy/. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
  36. 36.↵
    1. Lenzer J,
    2. Brownlee S
    . Naming names: is there an (unbiased) doctor in the house? BMJ 2008;337:a930.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. PLoS Medicine Editors
    . Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLoS Med 2008;5(9):e199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Pisacane A
    . Rethinking continuing medical education. BMJ 2008;337:a973.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    Tax industry to fund CME? Yes, in France. Global CME Newsletter 2011 October–November. Available from: www.wentzmiller.org/cmenewsletters2011.html. Accessed 2014 Jun 23.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 60 (8)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 60, Issue 8
1 Aug 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Industry involvement in continuing medical education
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Industry involvement in continuing medical education
Sheryl Spithoff
Canadian Family Physician Aug 2014, 60 (8) 694-696;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Industry involvement in continuing medical education
Sheryl Spithoff
Canadian Family Physician Aug 2014, 60 (8) 694-696;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Where we are in Canada
    • What should be done
    • Maintaining CME without industry support
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • L’implication de l’industrie dans la formation médicale continue
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Ethical drug marketing criteria for the 21st century
  • Strong force of industry
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Training policy limits career exploration in family medicine
  • Our role in making the Canadian health care system one of the world’s best
  • Food for thought, feeding the medical soul: COVID-19 pandemic lessons and reflections
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2023 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire