Explore the vast range of titles available.

Perhaps no kind of regulation is more common or less useful than mandated disclosure-requiring one party to a transaction to give the other information. It is the iTunes terms you assent to, the doctor's consent form you sign, the pile of papers you get with your mortgage. Reading the terms, the form, and the papers is supposed to equip you to choose your purchase, your treatment, and your loan well.More Than You Wanted to Knowsurveys the evidence and finds that mandated disclosure rarely works. But how could it? Who reads these disclosures? Who understands them? Who uses them to make better choices? Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl Schneider put the regulatory problem in human terms. Most people find disclosures complex, obscure, and dull. Most people make choices by stripping information away, not layering it on. Most people find they can safely ignore most disclosures and that they lack the literacy to analyze them anyway. And so many disclosures are mandated that nobody could heed them all. Nor can all this be changed by simpler forms in plainer English, since complex things cannot be made simple by better writing. Furthermore, disclosure is a lawmakers' panacea, so they keep issuing new mandates and expanding old ones, often instead of taking on the hard work of writing regulations with bite. Timely and provocative,More Than You Wanted to Knowtakes on the form of regulation we encounter daily and asks why we must encounter it at all.

PurposeThis paper investigates how organisations are responding to mandatory modern slavery disclosure legislation. Experimentalist governance suggests that organisations faced with disclosure requirements such as those contained in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 will compete with one another, and in doing so, improve compliance. The authors seek to understand whether this is the case.Design/methodology/approachThis study is set in the UK public sector. The authors conduct interviews with over 25% of UK universities that are within the scope of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and examine their reporting and disclosure under that legislation.FindingsThe authors find that, contrary to the logic of experimentalist governance, universities' disclosures as reflected in their modern slavery statements are persistently poor on detail, lack variation and have led to little meaningful action to tackle modern slavery. They show that this is due to a herding effect that results in universities responding as a sector rather than independently; a built-in incapacity to effectively manage supply chains; and insufficient attention to the issue at the board level. The authors also identity important boundary conditions of experimentalist governance.Research limitations/implicationsThe generalisability of the authors’ findings is restricted to the public sector.Practical implicationsIn contexts where disclosure under the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 is not a core offering of the sector, and where competition is limited, there is little incentive to engage in a “race to the top” in terms of disclosure. As such, pro-forma compliance prevails and the effectiveness of disclosure as a tool to drive change in supply chains to safeguard workers is relatively ineffective. Instead, organisations must develop better knowledge of their supply chains and executives and a more critical eye for modern slavery to be combatted effectively. Accountants and their systems and skills can facilitate this development.Originality/valueThis is the first investigation of the organisational processes and activities which underpin disclosures related to modern slavery disclosure legislation. This paper contributes to the accounting and disclosure modern slavery literature by investigating public sector organisations' processes, activities and responses to mandatory reporting legislation on modern slavery.

Failure to report the results of a clinical trial can distort the evidence base for clinical practice, breaches researchers' ethical obligations to participants, and represents an important source of research waste. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007 now requires sponsors of applicable trials to report their results directly onto ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of completion. The first trials covered by the Final Rule of this act became due to report results in January, 2018. In this cohort study, we set out to assess compliance. We downloaded data for all registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. All cross-sectional analyses in this manuscript were performed on data extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov on Sept 16, 2019; monthly trends analysis used archived data closest to the 15th day of each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. Our study cohort included all applicable trials due to report results under FDAAA. We excluded all non-applicable trials, those not yet due to report, and those given a certificate allowing for delayed reporting. A trial was considered reported if results had been submitted and were either publicly available, or undergoing quality control review at ClinicalTrials.gov. A trial was considered compliant if these results were submitted within 1 year of the primary completion date, as required by the legislation. We described compliance with the FDAAA 2007 Final Rule, assessed trial characteristics associated with results reporting using logistic regression models, described sponsor-level reporting, examined trends in reporting, and described time-to-report using the Kaplan-Meier method. 4209 trials were due to report results; 1722 (40·9%; 95% CI 39·4–42·2) did so within the 1-year deadline. 2686 (63·8%; 62·4–65·3) trials had results submitted at any time. Compliance has not improved since July, 2018. Industry sponsors were significantly more likely to be compliant than non-industry, non-US Government sponsors (odds ratio [OR] 3·08 [95% CI 2·52–3·77]), and sponsors running large numbers of trials were significantly more likely to be compliant than smaller sponsors (OR 11·84 [9·36–14·99]). The median delay from primary completion date to submission date was 424 days (95% CI 412–435), 59 days higher than the legal reporting requirement of 1 year. Compliance with the FDAAA 2007 is poor, and not improving. To our knowledge, this is the first study to fully assess compliance with the Final Rule of the FDAAA 2007. Poor compliance is likely to reflect lack of enforcement by regulators. Effective enforcement and action from sponsors is needed; until then, open public audit of compliance for each individual sponsor may help. We will maintain updated compliance data for each individual sponsor and trial at fdaaa.trialstracker.net. Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

The application of a currently proposed differential privacy algorithm to the 2020 United States Census data and additional data products may affect the usefulness of these data, the accuracy of estimates and rates derived from them, and critical knowledge about social phenomena such as health disparities. We test the ramifications of applying differential privacy to released data by studying estimates of US mortality rates for the overall population and three major racial/ethnic groups. We ask how changes in the denominators of these vital rates due to the implementation of differential privacy can lead to biased estimates. We situate where these changes are most likely to matter by disaggregating biases by population size, degree of urbanization, and adjacency to a metropolitan area. Our results suggest that differential privacy will more strongly affect mortality rate estimates for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics than estimates for non-Hispanic whites. We also find significant changes in estimated mortality rates for less populous areas, with more pronounced changes when stratified by race/ethnicity. We find larger changes in estimated mortality rates for areas with lower levels of urbanization or adjacency to metropolitan areas, with these changes being greater for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics. These findings highlight the consequences of implementing differential privacy, as proposed, for research examining population composition, particularly mortality disparities across racial/ethnic groups and along the urban/rural continuum. Overall, they demonstrate the challenges in using the data products derived from the proposed disclosure avoidance methods, while highlighting critical instances where scientific understandings may be negatively impacted.

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesOvid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesObservational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after studies of patient groups reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups that disclosed information about this funding; and association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. Studies were included irrespective of language or publication type.Review methodsReviewers carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessment of study quality. An amended version of the checklist for prevalence studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to assess study quality. A DerSimonian-Laird estimate of single proportions with Freeman-Tukey arcsine transformation was used for meta-analyses of prevalence. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.Results26 cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies estimated the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). Among patient organisations that received industry funding, 27% (175/642; 95% confidence interval 24% to 31%) disclosed this information on their websites. In submissions to consultations, two studies showed very different disclosure rates (0% and 91%), which appeared to reflect differences in the relevant government agency’s disclosure requirements. Prevalence estimates of organisational policies that govern corporate sponsorship ranged from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274). Four studies analysed the relationship between industry funding and organisational positions on a range of highly controversial issues. Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors’ interests.ConclusionIn general, industry funding of patient groups seems to be common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 83%. Few patient groups have policies that govern corporate sponsorship. Transparency about corporate funding is also inadequate. Among the few studies that examined associations between industry funding and organisational positions, industry funded groups tended to have positions favourable to the sponsor. Patient groups have an important role in advocacy, education, and research, therefore strategies are needed to prevent biases that could favour the interests of sponsors above those of the public.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017079265.