Conflicts of interest in submissions and testimonies to an Australian parliamentary inquiry on menopause

Bibliographic Data

ID22945679
AuthorsMelanie Randle (0000-0001-9129-1701, University of Wollongong), Barbara Mintzes (0000-0002-8671-915X, The University of Sydney), Simone Mccarthy (0000-0003-2671-3511, Deakin University), Hannah Pitt (0000-0002-4259-6186, Deakin University), Sabrina Lynette Thomas (0000-0003-1427-7775, Deakin University)
Year2024
Volume39
Issue6
Publication date2024-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Promotion International (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0957-4824 • E-ISSN: 1460-2245
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/heapro/daae150
PMID39569482
OpenAlexW4404570559
LanguageEN
Citations received7
References cited29

Conflicts of interest (COIs) have the potential to create bias in research, policy and practice. Although disclosure cannot fully protect individuals and public policy from vested interests, it is an important step to support trust in scientific and public discourse, and transparency in decision-making. However, COIs are often unreported, underreported or difficult to identify. This study aimed to assess the extent to which COIs are voluntarily declared by those who make submissions to government inquiries relating to health, focusing on the 2024 Australian Senate inquiry into perimenopause and menopause. There was no guidance or formal requirement to provide COI declarations in written submissions to the inquiry. However, a statement about COI declarations was given by the Chair of the inquiry at the start of public hearings in which verbal testimony was given. All 284 written submissions and 163 verbal testimonies were reviewed to identify the number and nature of COIs declared. Only 1% of written submissions and 6% of verbal testimonies provided a COI statement. The amount and nature of information provided in COI declarations varied widely. To ensure transparency in decisions made as a result of public inquiries, governments should require that COIs be declared for all submissions. An explicit standardized guide is needed, with clear parameters about the type of detail needed for these declarations. Processes for dealing with COIs should also be clear in any reports or recommendations that are made from the evidence presented at such inquiries.

Conflict of interest · Government (linguistics) · Political science · Public health · Public interest · Public relations · Sociology · Statement (logic) · Transparency (behavior) · Academic Publishing and Open Access · Law · Medicine · Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare · Psychology · scientometrics and bibliometrics research