{"id":25533,"date":"2013-03-28T16:58:53","date_gmt":"2013-03-28T15:58:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?p=25533"},"modified":"2013-04-02T16:43:02","modified_gmt":"2013-04-02T15:43:02","slug":"readers-editor-too-much-medicine-and-pharma-advertising-in-the-bmj","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2013\/03\/28\/readers-editor-too-much-medicine-and-pharma-advertising-in-the-bmj\/","title":{"rendered":"Readers’ editor: Pharma advertising in the BMJ"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"David In 2011 research physician Tristan Barber responded<\/a> to an editor\u2019s choice on conflicts of interest, saying: \u201cReading the current BMJ<\/em> and noting several letters regarding conflicts of interest, it was particularly distracting to have the front cover being a fold-out advertisement for a pharmaceutical product.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs a consequence I was very aware of all of the pharmaceutical advertising throughout the current edition. This may have been commented on before, but whilst considering industry impact on researchers and authors, has there been much consideration of the impact of advertising within a journal on the opinion of readers on its editorial policy or contents?\u201d<\/p>\n

Dr Barber\u2019s concerns sprang to mind last week when the BMJ\u2019s editorial advisory board<\/a>\u00a0assembled in London for its annual meeting. The board consists of internationally renowned and active clinicians, clinical academics, and health policy experts.<\/p>\n

As part of the meeting we discussed the journal’s Too Much Medicine<\/a> campaign, which aims to highlight the threat to human health posed by overdiagnosis and the waste of resources on unnecessary care.<\/p>\n

One board member asked how we square campaigns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment with a business model that relies on\u00a0pharma advertising for new drugs. More specifically, if there was evidence that a drug fell into the category of too much medicine, would we still publish it? Does anybody at the BMJ<\/em> vet them to ensure that\u00a0a drug’s benefits aren’t\u00a0over-stated?<\/p>\n

Editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee compared the BMJ<\/em> campaign and its advertising policies with The Guardian<\/em> newspaper, which\u00a0has a long-standing\u00a0interest in highlighting climate change<\/a>, but still\u00a0publishes hefty travel supplements with\u00a0advertisements for long haul travel.<\/p>\n

BMJ Group believes that the sale of display advertising space is a legitimate source of revenue to support the publication of its journals in print and online. The BMJ\u2019s<\/em> advertising policy asks that ads are “legal, decent, and honest” and comply with the laws of the country in which they are to be seen.<\/p>\n

Advertisers shoulder this responsibility, working within the regulatory codes of practice devised by bodies such as the ABPI<\/a>\u00a0 At the BMJ<\/em> we often talk of the “Chinese wall<\/a>,”\u00a0a clear demarcation between the advertising sales and editorial teams. This safeguard helps to avoid conflicts of interest, and means advertisers have no prior knowledge of an article that may mention their product, either positively or negatively. You can read our advertising policy on the BMJ Group website<\/a>\u00a0 It\u2019s quite complex and is currently being restructured to make it\u00a0easier to navigate.<\/p>\n

The policy has separate sections for some products, such as tobacco and food. Two years ago the BMJ<\/em> was accused<\/a>\u00a0of running an ad that lent credence to a marketing campaign sponsored by bottled water manufacturer Danone<\/a> on the Hydration for Health website.<\/p>\n

Glasgow GP Margaret McCartney\u00a0 led the charge on her blog<\/a> before writing a follow-up BMJ<\/em> feature\u00a0 about the evidence to support the idea that we don\u2019t drink enough water. The journal decided<\/a>\u00a0the ad had breached BMJ Group\u2019s advertising policy\u00a0about foodstuffs<\/a>, which states: \u201cAdvertisement for foodstuffs, food supplements, vitamins, and minerals should conform to the guidelines of the British Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion and should be submitted with full substantiation of all claims.<\/p>\n

“All claims must be referenced to full length research papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals. (Abstracts won’t do.)The BMJ editor must approve all advertisements before publication.”<\/p>\n

If readers dislike an ad, they can follow McCartney\u2019s example and complain to the journal, usually by submitting a response. The advertiser is then shown the response and asked to comment.<\/p>\n

Why does any of this matter? Perhaps this is best explained not by the BMJ<\/em> but by self-styled “grumpy scientist” Dr Aust, who responded to McCartney\u2019s blog post about Hydration for Health\u2019s ad on bmj.com: “Honestly, if the BMJ are going to let this kind of sh*te run on their site, what hope is there for the rest of us trying to counteract all the \u201cHydration balls\u201d in the mainstream press etc?”<\/p>\n

David Payne<\/strong> is editor, bmj.com, and readers’ editor.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 2011 research physician Tristan Barber responded to an editor\u2019s choice on conflicts of interest, saying: \u201cReading the current BMJ and noting several letters regarding conflicts of interest, it was particularly distracting to have the front cover being a fold-out advertisement for a pharmaceutical product. \u201cAs a consequence I was very aware of all of […]<\/p>\n

Read More…<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1752,5738],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-david-payne","category-readers-editor"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25533"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25533\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}