Wild, C. and Khan, A. and Erdos, J. (2015): Sponsoring of Patient Initiatives in Austria. Systematic Analysis. Rapid Assessment 007b.
|PDF (Bericht PatientInneninitiativen) - Sie müssen einen PDF-Viewer auf Ihrem PC installiert haben wie z. B. GSview, Xpdf oder Adobe Acrobat Reader|
|PDF (Addendum: Infografik PatientInneninitiativen) - Sie müssen einen PDF-Viewer auf Ihrem PC installiert haben wie z. B. GSview, Xpdf oder Adobe Acrobat Reader|
|PDF (Addendum: Stellungnahme Dachverband Selbsthilfe Kärnten) - Sie müssen einen PDF-Viewer auf Ihrem PC installiert haben wie z. B. GSview, Xpdf oder Adobe Acrobat Reader|
Background: As a consequence of the professionalisation of patients organisations and the expansion of their activities (e.g. awareness campaigns, lobbying, advisory services for patients and their relatives, etc.) the need for financial resources is increasing. This need is often covered by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. The research question underlying this systematic analysis was to what extent patients initiatives in Austria receive financial support from pharmaceutical companies.
Method: For the systematic analysis the websites of all PHARMIG member companies (as of July 2015) were examined regarding information about financial support for patient organisations in the year 2014.
Result: 24 of 115 PHARMIG member companies have declared donations to patient organisations for the year 2014. A total of € 1,145.718.- in grants to patient initiatives were reported. The majority of grants (63%) was handed out to four fields of diseases: neurology, haemato-oncology, rheumatology and haemophilia. The Austrian MS Society, followed by the Austrian Haemophilia Society, the Hepatitis Self-Help Group and Parkinson Self-Help Austria received the largest shares of the donations. Due to the low number of companies (barely 21%) having declared donations to patient organisations and a simultaneous rise in the number of company logos appearing on the websites of those patient initiatives, a case of "under reporting" can be assumed.
Conclusions: The pharmaceutical companies in Austria have taken an important step towards greater transparency with the PHARMIG Code of Conduct. Whether compliance with the disclosure requirements is also controlled and –in case of disrespect- sanctioned, could not be ascertained. On the part of patient organisations, both a critical examination of the potential conflicts of interest that may arise and a transparent handling of financial and other benefits have yet to be undertaken.
|Item Type:||Rapid Assessment LBI-HTA|
|Keywords:||Pharma Industry, sponsoring, influence, patients, drugs|
|Subjects:||W Health professions > W 74-80 Medical economics. Health care costs|
W Health professions > W 85 Patients and patient advocacy
QV Pharmacology, toxicology, pharmacy > QV 701-737 Pharmacy
|Series Name:||Rapid Assessment 007b|
|Deposited on:||05 Oct 2015 10:42|
|Last Modified:||05 Jul 2017 18:10|
Repository Staff Only: item control page