To identify views and establish agreements of key stakeholders on the features of an effective system for declaring and managing conflicts of interest in healthcare.

A modified Delphi study consisting of two surveys and semi-structured interviews. Surveys included closed and free-text questions.

UK, purposefully and generally invited participants including academics, researchers, healthcare professionals, regulators, patients and citizens from 10 countries, during 25 August 2024 and 20 January 2025.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of two surveys and 21 interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample and analyse closed survey questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse free-text survey responses and interview data. Results were synthesised to describe the perceived importance and purposes of declaration of interest systems.

In the first survey round, 616 invitations were sent, along with social media advertisements. 237 questionnaires were returned and 200 full responses were analysable. 129 respondents consented to recontact on the online form. In the interview round, 37 invitations were sent and 21 interviews completed (response rate 59.5%). Invitations for the second survey were sent to all 129 participants who consented to recontact. 91 responses were received and 89 questionnaires were analysable (response rate 82%). Features of ideal systems to declare and manage the interests of healthcare professionals identified by participants were categorised under seven themes: regulatory issues, the healthcare environment, human vices, professional virtues, the use of judgement, features of a better system and patients and public. There was broad agreement on the need for transparency and clarity in declaration systems. The most agreed features were: clarity on what information was needed; it should be a centralised ‘deposit’ for all declarations; it should be publicly accessible, educating and informing people accessing and using the register. Having a lifelong personal identifier, some flexibility in declarations and some privacy features were also rated highly. Respondents were less concerned about scrutiny or a loss of trust. Small numbers of participants raised concerns about serious adverse effects, including loss of privacy, personal safety and the potential of information to contribute to conspiracy theories. There were also major disagreements between participants concerning whether or not healthcare professionals should work with industry, and whether conflicts of interest from working with industry can be safely managed. Individuals with each perspective felt they were acting ethically.

While many agreements were identified, disagreements were also found. If improved declaration systems are to be accepted by professionals and useful to regulators, patients and citizens, the potential for benefit and harm from new declaration systems must be addressed.

Prepublished, Open Science Framework https://osf.io/fbj5n.

To describe: (1) the most visible information (from individuals or organisations) on UK social media regarding hormone replacement therapy (HRT)/menopause hormone treatment for menopause; (2) claims made by these sources for HRT and testosterone outwith the indications specified by the British National Formulary (BNF) and the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (ie, vasomotor instability, vaginal dryness, low mood associated with the menopause and, for testosterone, low libido after treatment with HRT) and for use for the prevention of future ill health and (3) conflicts of interest of commentators.

Cross-sectional study.

Online references to HRT, for use in menopause, in UK online media, comprising Facebook, Google, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, 30 top ranked hits between 1 January 2022 and 1 June 2023 and Twitter (X) up to 1 May 2024.

Identification of the most visible information was performed via online searching with the term ‘HRT’ using incognito searches within each modality. Statements making claims were identified and analysed as to whether they were congruent with BNF and NICE advice on indications for use. Declarations of interest were extracted from the source or searched for if not apparent using a standardised search strategy. Data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Summary and descriptive statistics were used to summarise the results, including description of origin and types of claims, percentage of claims in agreement with NICE/BNF indications, relationship to financial interests and readership data, where available.

180 recommendations and/or claims for HRT were examined (30 from each of six platforms), made by professional individuals (53.4%), laypeople (41.7%) and patient, media and professional organisations (4.9%) completing the total. Overall, 67.2% of claims were outside of BNF/NICE recommendations. 139 (77.2%) were associated with a conflict of interest. In 117 cases, this was a conflict either directly or indirectly related to menopause, through provision of private practice, pharmaceutical industry funding or retail products marketed at the menopause.

Social media commonly contains claims for HRT outside BNF/NICE guidance. Conflicts of interest by commentators are also common, directly or indirectly related to menopause. Less than a quarter of media contained no commercial conflict. Policymakers should consider means to ensure that non-conflicted, evidence-based information is visible to professionals, patients and the public.

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/r7e5c/).