The role of pharmaceutical and medical device companies (“industry”) in graduate medical education (GME) is under debate. We surveyed program directors in general surgery and surgical specialties to determine industry activities in surgical GME. We used an internet-based questionnaire regarding industry marketing and educational activities in surgical programs, and their effects on surgical education. We received 65 responses to 377 requests (17%). Nearly two-thirds reported industry-sponsored meals. Industry-supported travel was infrequent (“never” and “seldom” in 56% of device workshops, 69% of lectures, and 74% of conferences). More than one-half reported support for academic events: paid lecturers and exhibition fees (both 58%), and unrestricted grants (62%). More than one-half (54%) reported industry-sponsored research. One-fourth believed their programs to be dependent on industry for their educational missions. Most disagreed that industry support posed a problem, either in general (55%) or for their program (71%). One-fourth of respondents (25%) advocated profession-wide restrictions of industry involvement with GME. Equal numbers agreed (39%) and disagreed (35%) with the view that pharmaceutical and medical device industries have motivations that are in conflict with those of doctors and their patients. Industry activities are widespread in surgical residencies, with approval of many program directors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrennanT.A., RothmanD.J., BlankL.Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers.JAMA2006; 295: 429–33.
2.
ChimonasS., BrennanT.A., RothmanD.J.Physicians and drug representatives: exploring the dynamics of the relationship.J Gen Intern Med2007; 22: 184–90.
StosselT.P.Regulating academic-industry research relationships–solving problems or stifling progress.N Engl J Med2005; 353: 1060–5.
14.
StosselT.P.Regulation of financial conflicts of interest in medical practice and medical research. A damaging solution in search of a problem.Perspect Biol Med2007; 50: 54–71.
15.
EpsteinR.Pharma furor. Why two high-profile attacks on big drug companies flunk the test of basic economics.Legal Aff.2005: 56–8.
16.
ZycherB., DiMasiJ.A., MilneC-PThe truth about drug innovation: thirty-five summary case histories on private sector contributions to pharmaceutical science. Medical Progress Report No. 6 (Center for Medical Progress, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, June 2008). Available at: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/cgi-bin/apMI/print.cgi. Accessed October 28, 2008.
17.
WilhelmM.J., SchmidC., ScheldH.H.The place of research and the role of academic surgeons in cardiac surgery.Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2004; 54: 117–23.
18.
RavitchM.M., SteichenF.M.Staples and staplers.Adv Surg1984; 17: 241–79.
19.
HarrellA.G., HenifordB.T.Minimally invasive abdominal surgery: Lux et veritas past, present, and future.Am J Surg2005; 190: 239–43.
20.
FogartyT.J., ArkoF.R., ZarinsC.K.Endograft technology: highlights of the past 10 years.J Endovasc Ther2004; 11(Suppl 2): II192–9.
21.
KatzD.J., MerzJ., CaplanA.All gifts large and small: toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical gift giving.Am J Bioeth2003; 3: 39–46.
22.
StosselT.P.A biopsy of financial conflicts of interest in medicine.Surgery2008; 143: 193–8.
23.
StellL.K.Against the flow. Why Physicians should listen to drug reps.ASBH Exchange.2005; 8: 1, 4–5.
EpsteinR.A.Conflicts of interest in health care.Who guards the guardians? Perspect Biol Med2007; 50: 72–88.
28.
Committee on Ethics, American College of Surgeons.Guidelines for collaboration of industry and surgical organizations in support of research and continuing education.Bull Am Coll Surg2001; 86: 30–1.
