Abstract
While most medical journals require disclosures of industry payments to authors and editors, there is no requirement for textbooks. In this study we evaluated nine well-known psychopharmacology textbooks to identify payments to their writers and editors. Two-thirds of the textbooks had at least one editor or author who received personal payments from one or more pharmaceutical companies, for a total of 11,021,409 USD paid to 11 of 21 editors/authors over a seven-year period. Much of this money was paid to a single author but 24% of the writers received over 75,000 USD each over this time period. There are several psychopharmacology textbooks authored by writers without apparent financial conflicts of interest. Just as with medical journals, medical textbooks should be transparent about payments made to their authors and editors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Baldessarini, R. J. (2014). The impact of psychopharmacology on contemporary psychiatry. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, 59(8), 401–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371405900801
Bero, L. A., & Grundy, Q. (2016). Why having a (nonfinancial) interest is not a conflict of interest. PLoS Biology, 14(12), e2001221. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001221
Bero, L., Oostvogel, F., Bacchetti, P., & Lee, K. (2007). Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug–drug comparisons: Why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Medicine, 4(6), e184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040184
Bertotti, A. M., & Miner, S. A. (2019). Constructing contentious and noncontentious facts: How gynecology textbooks create certainty around pharma-contraceptive safety. Social Studies of Science, 49(2), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719834676
Cosgrove, L., Vannoy, S., Mintzes, B., & Shaughnessy, A. F. (2016). Under the influence: The Interplay among industry, publishing, and drug regulation. Accountability in Research, 23(5), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1153971
Fugh-Berman, A., & Batt, S. (2006). “This may sting a bit”: Cutting CME’s ties to pharma. The Virtual Mentor: VM, 8(6), 412–415. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.6.oped1-0606
Grande, D., Frosch, D. L., Perkins, A. W., & Kahn, B. E. (2009). Effect of exposure to small pharmaceutical promotional items on treatment preferences. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(9), 887–893. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.64
Institute of Medicine. (2009). Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12598
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. (2011). Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209539/
Ioannidis, J. (2018). Professional societies should abstain from authorship of guidelines and disease definition statements. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 11(10), e004889. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004889
Katz, D., Caplan, A. L., & Merz, J. F. (2003). All gifts large and small: Toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB, 3(3), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/15265160360706552
King, M., & Bearman, P. S. (2017). Gifts and influence: Conflict of interest policies and prescribing of psychotropic medications in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 1982(172), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.010
Lenzer, J., Hoffman, J. R., Furberg, C. D., Ioannidis, J. P., & Guideline Panel Review Working Group (2013). Ensuring the integrity of clinical practice guidelines: A tool for protecting patients. BMJ (Clinical Research Edition), 347, f5535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5535
Lexchin, J., & O’Donovan, O. (2010). Prohibiting or ‘managing’ conflict of interest? A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 70(5), 643–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.002
Lundh, A., & Gøtzsche, P. (2010). Sponsorship of medical textbooks by drug or device companies. Canadian Medical Education Journal, 1(1), e10–e17. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.36527
Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L. (2018). Industry sponsorship and research outcome: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Intensive Care Medicine, 44(10), 1603–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7
Lyons, J. S., MacIntyre, J. C., Lee, M. E., Carpinello, M. S., Zuber, M. P., & Fazio, M. L. (2004). Psychotropic medications prescribing. Community Mental Health Journal, 40(2), 101–118.
Norris, S. L., Holmer, H. K., Ogden, L. A., & Burda, B. U. (2011). Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e25153. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025153
Perlis, R. H., Perlis, C. S., Wu, Y., Hwang, C., Joseph, M., & Nierenberg, A. A. (2005). Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(10), 1957–1960. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.10.1957
Piper, B. J., Lambert, D. A., Keefe, R. C., Smukler, P. U., Selemon, N. A., & Duperry, Z. R. (2018). Undisclosed conflicts of interest among biomedical textbook authors. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 9(2), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2018.1436095
Piper, B. J., Telku, H. M., & Lambert, D. A. (2015). A quantitative analysis of undisclosed conflicts of interest in pharmacology textbooks. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0133261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133261
Shaughnessy, A. F., Vaswani, A., Andrews, B. K., Erlich, D. R., D’Amico, F., Lexchin, J., & Cosgrove, L. (2017). Developing a clinician friendly tool to identify useful clinical practice guidelines: G-TRUST. Annals of Family Medicine, 15(5), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2119
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007) Mistakes were made (but not by me): why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. Mifflin Harcourt.
Yank, V., Rennie, D., & Bero, L. A. (2007). Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ (clinical Research Edition), 335(7631), 1202–1205. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
LC designed the study, FH entered the data and created the Tables, LC and AFS wrote the initial draft. All authors were equal contributors in making substantial contributions to succeeding drafts. All authors are equally the guarantors of the integrity of this paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
Because the focus of the present study is on textbooks and not human subjects, the University of Massachusetts-Boston IRB stated that this did not constitute human research. Although all information reported in this study is publicly available, the names of individual authors and editors are not listed in the figures or tables or on-line materials.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cosgrove, L., Herrawi, F. & Shaughnessy, A.F. Conflicts of Interest in Psychopharmacology Textbooks. Community Ment Health J 58, 619–623 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-021-00906-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-021-00906-6