Table 3

Attitudes towards transparency

NStrongly disagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly agree
Payments by pharmaceutical companies are a risk for the independence of clinical practice and research23326/233 (11%)41/233 (18%)35/233 (15%)90/233 (39%)41/233 (18%)
In principle, I approve of transparency2334/233 (2%)3/233 (1%)16/233 (7%)39/233 (17%)171/233 (73%)
Collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and receiving payments by those companies is part of the medical profession23019/230 (8%)35/230 (15%)66/230 (28%)71/230 (31%)39/230 (17%)
Disclosure of payments should be more nuanced2338/233 (3%)7/233 (3%)43/233 (18%)51/233 (22%)124/233 (53%)
Disclosure of payments increases patients' trust in me23372/233 (31%)45/233 (19%)75/233 (32%)32/233 (14%)9/233 (4%)
Disclosure leads to a wrong impression in the public2339/233 (4%)24/233 (10%)31/233 (13%)78/233 (33%)91/233 (39%)
In case you are working in research
Transparency guidelines impede my scientific work15445/154 (29%)40/154 (26%)29/154 (19%)32/154 (21%)8/154 (5%)
I have been confronted with disclosures within the context of a published study at least once15456/154 (36%)17/154 (11%)22/154 (14%)24/154 (16%)35/154 (23%)
My research results were criticised because of my disclosures at least once152119/152 (78%)11/152 (7%)13/152 (9%)5/152 (3%)4/152 (3%)
The undifferentiated displaying of the disclosures brings science into disrepute15510/155 (6%)5/155 (3%)16/155 (10%)37/155 (24%)87/155 (56%)