Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study

Risk Analysis

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 1210-1229

  Bouder, Frederic ^a   Way, Dominic ^b   Löfstedt, Ragnar ^b   Evensen, Darrick ^c  

^a Department of Technology and Society Studies ^*  (Netherlands)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c OBERLIN COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cross national; Decisionmaking; Europe; Pharmaceuticals; Risk communication; Transparency

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DRUG PRODUCTS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; SAFETY ENGINEERING; SURVEYS;

CROSS-NATIONAL; EUROPE; HEALTH , SAFETY , AND ENVIRONMENTAL; PUBLIC INTERNET; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RISK COMMUNICATION; SAFETY-RELATED DATA; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

TRANSPARENCY;

COMMUNICATION; DRUG; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISE; POLICY ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY;

FRANCE; GERMANY; NETHERLANDS; SPAIN; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM;

DRUG;

AWARENESS; DRUG INDUSTRY; EUROPE; PATIENT SAFETY; PUBLIC OPINION;

AWARENESS; DRUG INDUSTRY; EUROPE; PATIENT SAFETY; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PUBLIC OPINION;

EID: 84938211557     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12386     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Löfstedt RE, Bouder F, Wardman J, Chakraborty S. The changing nature of communication and regulation of risk in Europe. Journal of Risk Research, 2009; 14(4):409-429.
2. Hampton T. European drug agency under fire. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2012; 306(6):593-595.
3. EMA. European Medicines Agency Policy on the Handling of Conflicts of Interests of Scientific Committee Members and Experts. European Medicines Agency, 2012.
4. Löfstedt RE, Bouder, F. New transparency policies: Risk communication's doom? Pp. 73-90 in Arvai J, Rivers III L (eds). Effective Risk Communication. Oxon and New York: Earthscan from Routledge, 2014.
5. Vogel D. National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.
6. Löfstedt RE, Vogel, D. The changing character of regulation: A comparison of Europe and the United States. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(3):399-416.
7. European Commission. European Governance-A White Paper. Brussels: European Commission, COM (2001) 428 Final, July 25, 2001.
8. Cabinet Office. Risk: Improving Government's Capability to Handle Risk and Uncertainty, Strategic Unit Report, 2002. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/±/http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/su%20risk%20summary.pdf, Accessed on September 4, 2014.
9. Löfstedt RE. Risk communication and management in the twenty-first century. International Public Management Journal, 2004; 7:335-346.
10. O' Neill O. A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
11. O'Neill O. Transparency and the ethics of communication. Pp. 75-90 in Hood C, Heald D (eds). Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
12. Grimmelikhuijsen SG, Meijer AJ. The effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2012; 24(1):137-157.
13. Löfstedt RE. Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2005.
14. Löfstedt RE. The impact of the Cox-2 inhibitor issue on perceptions of the pharmaceutical industry: Contents analysis and communication implications. Journal of Health Communication, 2007; 12(5):471-491.
15. Avorn J. Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks and Costs of Prescription Drugs. New York: Knopf, 2004.
16. Abraham J. Science, Politics and the Pharmaceutical Industry. London: Routledge, 1995.
17. Bryner R, Stephens T. Dark Remedy: The Impact of Thalidomide and its Revival as a Vital Medicine. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2001.
18. Mullard A. Mediator scandal rocks French medical community. Lancet, 2011; 377:890-892.
19. Angell M. The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York: Random House, 2004.
20. Goozner M. The 800 Million Dollar Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004.
21. Greider K. The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers. New York: Public Affairs, 2003.
22. Kassirer JP. On the Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
23. Coglianese C. The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government. Governance, 2009; 22(4):529-544.
24. Hamburg MA, Sharfstein J. The FDA as a public health agency. New England Journal of Medicine, 2009; 360:2493-2495.
25. EMA. The European Medicines Agency Road Map to 2015: The Agency's Contribution to Science, Medicines, Health. European Medicines Agency, 2010. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2011/01/WC500101373.pdf, Accessed on September 4, 2014.
26. EMA. European Medicines Agency Policy on Access to Documents (Related to Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use). London: European Medicines Agency, November 30, 2010.
27. EMA. Special Topics: Transparency. Web Portal of the European Medicines Agency, 2013. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/special_topics/general/general_content_000526.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580050108, Accessed September 17, 2013.
28. EMA. The EMEA Transparency Policy Draft for Public Consultation. London: European Medicines Agency, June and September 2009.
29. Eichler H-G, Abadie E, Breckenridge A, Leufkens, H, Rasi, G. Open clinical trial data for all? A view from regulators. PLOS Medicine, 2012; 9(4): e1001202.
30. Eichler H-G, Pétavy F, Pignatti F, Rasi G. Access to patient-level trial data-A boon to drug developers. New England Journal of Medicine, 2013; 369(17):1577-1579.
31. Hood C. What happens when transparency meets blame avoidance? Public Management Review, 2007; 9(2):191-210.
32. Treaty of Lisbon (2007/C 306/01). Official Journal of the European Union, Volume 50, 2007.
33. Coglianese C, Kilmartin H, Mendelson E. Transparency and Public Participation in the Rulemaking Process. Submission to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Transparency and Public Participation Task Force, 2009. Available at: http://reginfo.gov/public/jsp/EO/fedRegReview/Penn_Law_comments.pdf, Accessed September 17, 2013.
34. Curtin D. Transparency executive power. Pp. 204-246 in Curtin D (ed). Executive Power of the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
35. Etzioni A. Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, 2010; 18(4):389-404.
36. Löfstedt RE. Transparency at the EMA: More evidence is needed. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 2013; 47(3):299-300.
37. Heald D. Why is transparency about public expenditure so elusive? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2012; 78(1):30-49.
38. Löfstedt RE, Bouder F, Chakraborty S. Risk communication and transparency: A quantitative study. Journal of Health Communication, 2013;18(4):391-396.
39. Hood C, Heald D. (eds). Transparency. The Key to Better Governance? London: Proceedings of the British Academy, 2006.
40. Roberts A. Dashed expectations: Governmental adaptation to transparency rules. Pp. 107-126 in Hood C, Heald D (eds). Transparency. The Key to Better Governance? London: Proceedings of the British Academy, 2006.
41. Fung A, Graham M, Weil D. Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
42. Grimmelikhuijsen SG. Transparency of public decision-making: Toward trust in local government? Policy and Internet, 2010; 2(1):Article 2.
43. Hood C. Transparency in historical perspective. Pp. 3-23 in Hood C, Heald D (eds). Transparency. The Key to Better Governance? London: Proceedings of the British Academy, 2006.
44. Roberts J. No one is perfect: The limits of transparency and an ethic for "intelligent" accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2009; 34(8):957-970.
45. Florini A. Does the Invisible Hand Need a Transparent Glove? The Politics of Transparency. Washington, DC: Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, 1999.
46. Birkinshaw P. Freedom of information and openness: Fundamental human rights? Law Review, 2006; 58:177-218.
47. Meijer A. Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2009; 75(2):255-269.
48. Curtin D, Meijer AJ. Does transparency strengthen legitimacy? Information Polity, 2006; 11:109-123.
49. Bovens MAP, Wille A. Deciphering the Dutch drop: Ten explanations for decreasing public trust in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2008; 74:283-305.
50. Tsoukas H. The tyranny of light: The temptations and paradoxes of the information society. Futures, 1997; 29:827-843.
51. Chakraborty S, Löfstedt RE. Transparency initiative by the FDA's Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER): Two qualitative studies of public perceptions. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2012; 1:57-71.
52. EMA. European Public Assessment Reports: Background and Context. European Medicines Agency, 2014. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/general/general_content_000433.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058067fa25, Accessed September 4, 2014.
53. Sauer F. European Medicines Evaluation Agency is ahead of national licensing authorities. BMJ, 1998; 317:1078.
54. Abbasi K, Herxheimer A. The European Medicines Evaluation Agency: Open to criticism. BMJ, 1998; 317:898.
55. OECD. Ethics in the Public Service, Current Issues and Practice. Public Management Occasional Papers No. 14. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1996.
56. Doshi P, Jefferson T, Del Mar C. The imperative to share clinical study reports. Recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLOS Medicine, 2012; 9(4): e1001201.
57. Willmott G. Labour MEP's Campaign to Open Op Clinical Trials Takes Giant Step Forward. Glenis Willmott MEP, 2013. Available at: http://www.gleniswillmott.eu/labour-meps-campaign-to-open-up-clinical-trials-takes-giant-step-forward/, Accessed September 17, 2013.
58. Löfstedt RE. European Medicines Agency-More transparency needed. Lancet, 2010; 375:1753.
59. Hampton T. European Drug Agency under fire. JAMA, 2011; 306(6):593-595.
60. Groves T, Godlee F. The European Medicines Agency's for sharing data from clinical trials. BMJ, 2013; 346:f2961 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2961.
61. Gøtzsche P. European Governments should sue Roche and prescribers should boycott its drugs. BMJ, 2012; 345:e7689.
62. Löfstedt R, Way D. Transparency and trust in the European pharmaceutical sector: Outcomes from an experimental study. Journal of Risk Research, 2014. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.919517, Accessed September 4, 2014.
63. Goldacre B. Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. London: Harper Collins, 2012.
64. Godlee F. Clinical trial data for all drugs in current use. BMJ, 2012; 345:e73.
65. EMA. Access to Clinical Trial Data and Transparency: Workshop Report. European Medicines Agency, 2012. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2012/12/WC500135841.pdf, Accessed September 4, 2014.
66. Gøtzsche P. Roche continues to drag its feet on access to Tamiflu data. BMJ, 2013; 346:f3001.
67. Gøtzsche P, Jørgensen A. Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency. BMJ, 2011; 342:d2686.
68. European Ombudsman. Case Decision of the European Ombudsman Closing His Inquiry into Complaint 2560/2007/BEH Against the European Medicines Agency. European Ombudsman, 2010. Available at: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/5459/html.bookmark, Accessed September 17, 2013.
69. All Trials. All Trials Registered; All Trials Reported, 2013. Available at: http://www.alltrials.net/, Accessed September 4, 2014.
70. Smith R. Transparency: A modern essential. 2004; BMJ, 328:1136.
71. Garattini S, Bertele V. Europe's opportunity to open up on drug regulation. BMJ, 2010; 340:842-843.
72. Barbui C, Baschirotto C, Cipriani A. EMA must improve the quality of its clinical trial reports. BMJ, 2011; 342:d2291.
73. Godlee F. Promises of transparency? Hold the applause. BMJ, 2013;346:f1513
74. HoC (UK House of Commons). Government Must Take Action to Tackle Lack of Clinical Trial Transparency, Say MPs. UK Parliament, 2013. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/130916-clinical-trials-report-published/, Accessed September 4, 2014.
75. ENVI (Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety). Draft Report on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use, and Repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. European Parliament, 2013. Available at: http://euapm.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/European-Parliament-Draft-Report-on-Clinical-Trials-Directive.pdf, Accessed September 17, 2013.
76. IOM. Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Benefits and Risks of Pharmaceutical Products-Workshop in Brief. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2014.
77. Kasperson RE. Four questions for risk communication. Journal of Risk Research, 2014; 17(10):1233-1239.
78. Tuler SP, Kasperson RE. Social distrust and its implications for risk communication. Pp. 91-107 in Arvai J, Rivers III L (eds). Effective Risk Communication. Oxon and New York: Earthscan from Routledge, 2014.
79. Nissen S, Wolksi K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarcation and death from cardiovascular causes. New England Journal of Medicine, 2007; 356(24):2457-2470.
80. Löfstedt RE. Risk communication: The Avandia case, a pilot study. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 2010; 3(1):31-41.
81. Saul S. VA limits Glaxo drug widely used for diabetes. New York Times, NY, October 18, 2007.
82. IMB. Consumer Views on Sourcing Information on Medicines: National Survey. Irish Medicines Board, 2010. Available at: http://www.lenus.ie/hse/handle/10147/96670, Accessed September 17, 2013.
83. Flynn J, Peter E, Mertz CK, Slovic P. Risk, media and stigma at Rocky Flats. Risk Analysis, 1998; 18(6):715-727.
84. Kasperson RE, Jhaveri N, Kasperson JX. Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis. Pp. 9-27 in Slovic P, Flynn J, Kunreuther H (eds). Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Oxon and New York: Earthscan, 2004.
85. Fischhoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidenced-Based User's Guide. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 2011. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UCM268069.pdf, Accessed September 17, 2013.
86. Fischhoff B. The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the Academies of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013; 110 (Suppl 3):14033-14039. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213273110.
87. Löfstedt RE, Bouder F. The Ditchley Transparency Manifesto. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 2012; 46(1): 7.
88. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of research. Risk Analysis, 1995; 15:137-145.
89. Bouder F. Benefit/Risk Communication by the European Medicines Agency: A Study of Influential Stakeholders' Expectations and Attitudes. European Medicines Agency, 2011. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2011/05/WC500106865.pdf, Accessed June 26, 2013.
90. USFDA. Risk Communication Advisory Committee. US Food and Drug Administration, 2013. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/RiskCommunicationAdvisoryCommittee/default.htm, Accessed September 17, 2013.
91. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. The drugs facts box: Making informed decisions about prescription drugs possible. Pp. 233-242 in Gigerenzer G, Muir Gray JA (eds). Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions Envisioning Health Care 2020. Cambridge, MA: MIT Books; 2011.