Conflicts of interest and the (in)dependence of experts advising government on immunization policies

• Published in: Vaccine Vol. 36; no. 49; pp. 7439 - 7444
• Main Authors: Bélisle-Pipon, Jean-Christophe, Ringuette, Louise, Cloutier, Anne-Isabelle, Doudenkova, Victoria, Williams-Jones, Bryn
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Ltd 26.11.2018; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Committees; Conflict of interest; Conflicts of interest; Decision making; Dependence; Expert advisors; Experts; Human papillomavirus; Immunization; Medical personnel; Policy-making; Professionals; Public concern; Public good; Public health; Risk management; Scholarships & fellowships; Transparency; Trust; Vaccine; Vaccines; Immunization; Transparency; Vaccine; Expert advisors; Policy-making; Conflict of interest
• ISSN: 0264-410X; 1873-2518
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.058

•Immunization experts’ financial conflicts of interest (COI) may affect public trust.•(In)DepScale was developed for assessing experts’ level of (in)dependence.•Ad hoc experts have lower levels of independence than statutory members.•Most COIs are reported with companies with the highest vaccine sales.•(In)DepScale may help immunization committees to manage COIs. There has been increasing attention to financial conflicts of interest (COI) in public health research and policy making, with concerns that some decisions are not in the public interest. One notable problematic area is expert advisory committee (EAC). While COI management has focused on disclosure, it could go further and assess experts’ degree of (in)dependence with commercial interests. We analyzed COI disclosures of members of Québec’s immunization EAC (in Canada) using (In)DepScale, a tool we developed for assessing experts’ level of (in)dependence. We found great variability of independence with industry and that companies with the highest vaccine sales were predominantly associated with disclosed COIs. We argue that EACs can use the (In)DepScale to better assess and disclose the COIs that affect their experts. Going forward our scale could help manage risk and select members who are less conflicted to foster a culture of transparency and trust in advisors and policy-makers.