Back

Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest Among the Japanese Government Advisory Board Members Concerning Coronavirus Disease 2019

Mamada, H.; Murayama, A.; Ozaki, A.; Hashimoto, T.; Saito, H.; Sawano, T.; Bhandari, D.; Shrestha, S.; Tanimoto, T.

2021-09-23 health policy
10.1101/2021.09.12.21263442 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the extent of conflicts of interest among the Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board members and elucidate the accuracy of conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure and management strategies. MethodsUsing the payment data from all 79 pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2017 and 2018 and direct research grants from the Japanese government between 2019 and 2020, we evaluated the extent of financial and non-financial COI among all 20 Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board members. ResultsJapanese government COVID-19 advisory board members were predominantly male (75.0%) and physicians (50.0%). Between 2019 and 2020, two members (10.0%) received a total of $819,244 in government research funding. Another five members (25.0%) received $419,725 in payments, including $223,183 in personal fees, from 28 pharmaceutical companies between 2017 and 2018. The average value of the pharmaceutical payments was $20,986 (standard deviation: $81,762). Further, neither the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare nor the Japanese Cabinet Secretariat disclosed financial or non-financial COI with industry. Further, the government and had no policies for managing COI among advisory board members. ConclusionsThis study found that the Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board had financial and non-financial COI with pharmaceutical companies and the government. Further, there were no rigorous COI management strategies for the COVID-19 advisory board members. Any government must ensure the independence of scientific advisory boards by implementing more rigorous and transparent management strategies that require the declaration and public disclosure of all COI.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.