Is there a relationship between attitudes of general practitioners/family doctors and attitudes of their patients regarding industry-sponsored clinical investigations? A cross-sectional survey in a convenience sample of doctors and patients across nine European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the relationship between the attitudes of general practitioners/family medicine doctors (GP/FD) and of their patients toward industry-sponsored clinical research. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey included volunteer GPs/FDs who then enrolled and interviewed their patients. Data were analyzed in hierarchical models (patients nested in GPs/FDs, nested in countries/regions). RESULTS: A total of 201 GPs/FDs from nine European countries responded to the invitation and enrolled 995 of their patients. We observed mild associations between some of the GPs/FDs' attitudes (general opinion on sponsored clinical studies, appreciation of the general values of such studies, views about the importance of participant protection/privacy) and some of the patients' attitudes (appreciation of the general values and of risks associated with sponsored clinical studies, importance assigned to potential personal benefits from participation). We observed no association between GPs/FDs' attitudes and patients' willingness to participate in such studies. However, willingness to participate increased with higher patients' appreciation of the general values of sponsored studies, decreased with higher patients' appreciation of associated risks, and showed a quadratic trend across the levels of importance assigned by patients to potential personal benefits (willingness was higher when the assigned importance was very low or very high). More importance to GP/FD's advice in this respect was assigned by patients who assigned more importance to potential personal benefits, who were better educated, and who resided in rural/suburban dwellings. CONCLUSIONS: In the present convenience sample, lay-person attitudes about and willingness to participate in industry-sponsored clinical studies were associated with the attitudes of their GPs/FDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".