123 Eur Spine J (2008) 17 (Suppl 1): S24-S32 DOI 10.1007/s00586-008-0622-0 Reprinted with permission from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Reardon R, Haldeman S, Self-Study of Values, Beliefs, and Confict of Interest, The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders, SPINE, Volume 33, Number 4S, pp S24–S32 Self-Study of Values, Beliefs, and Conflict of Interest The Bone and Joint Decade 2000 –2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders Rhoda Reardon, DP&OT,* and Scott Haldeman, DC, MD, PhD† Study Design. Observation and survey of values, be- liefs, and conflicts of interest. Objective. To study the values, beliefs, and potential conflicts of interest that the Neck Pain Task Force brought to their deliberations. Summary of Background Data. Researchers’ values and beliefs were studied to uncover areas of divergence and to develop guiding principles to assist decision making. Methods. An observer used direct observation and survey of the Neck Pain Task Force, facilitated discussion, and developed a “disclosure tool” to collect information about relationships between researchers, funders, and others with a vested interest in the outcome. Results. Clinicians and research methodologists brought different imperatives to the research process. Clinicians focused on offering useful advice, whereas methodologists guarded investigative rigor to ensure that evidence actually supported advice. Group conflict did not polarize along “clinical discipline lines.” The Advisory Committee had greater impact when given a clear task and time to work as a group. The Neck Pain Task Force agreed on a set of “guiding principles,” which became an overarching doctrine to guide their work. The disclosure questionnaires described relation- ships between Neck Pain Task Force members and other entities that might have had a financial interest in the topic. Conclusion. This study describes a process used to assess values, beliefs, and conflicts of interest among members of a scientific task force, and how this was used to create “guiding principles” to assist the re- search team in deliberations, particularly when conflict arose. Most members of the Neck Pain Task Force had potential conflicts of interest with various stakeholders, but there was marked diffusion of these potential con- flicts and no evidence that any funder or other vested interest stakeholder was likely to have a significant impact on the deliberations or conclusions of the Neck Pain Task Force. Key words: task force, neck pain, values, conflicts of interest, guidelines. Recommendations from prestigious task forces can affect how patients are diagnosed and treated. They may influ- ence health care policy by supporting or rejecting current treatment protocols. Recommendations from such groups may also influence the future direction of re- search, and the conclusions are likely to affect how pa- tients, clinicians, and policy makers look at a healthcare issue. A task force convened to survey a substantial lit- erature and made judgments about which studies are of sufficient quality to contribute to pooled knowledge bears the weight of this responsibility and in this regard, the Neck Pain Task Force grappled with several issues. They were a diverse group representing 14 disciplines and 9 countries, but, at the same time, many of the re- search secretariat and advisors were previously known to each other and had worked and published together be- fore undertaking this work. They were cognizant of their responsibility to disclose relationships and financial ar- rangements, which could be perceived as conflict of in- terest but also recognized that their individual “values and beliefs” could potentially have an impact on their decision making. Conflict of interest has been described as, “a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as a patient’s welfare or the valid- ity of research) tends to be unduly influenced by a sec- ondary interest (such as financial gain),” 1 or, “a situation in which personal benefit or economic gain (either direct or indirect via an individual’s research program, institu- tion, or individual reputation) takes priority over clarity or accuracy of the reporting of the research.” 2 The Neck Pain Task Force agreed that in meeting their disclosure obligations they would address 3 key ques- tions: (1) Can we, as clinicians and scientists, make our values and beliefs regarding research, in general, and neck pain, in particular, transparent? (2) Can we exam- ine our own values and beliefs and use this awareness to improve our work as a research team? (3) Can we define and implement a comprehensive method for describing and disclosing our relationships? They decided to invite an observer to join their delib- erations who could assist them to examine researcher values and beliefs and monitor their work over time to observe how their values and beliefs might have an im- pact on their decisions and conclusions. Materials and Methods The Task Force recruited an experienced individual with a clin- ical background who possessed the following attributes: an understanding of the research milieu and process; an awareness of public health care policy making as well as private insurer issues and concerns; broad experience in group process; and From the *College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Ontario, Canada; †Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA; and Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Uni- versity of California, Los Angeles, CA. The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s). No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Rhoda Reardon, Ed- ucation Coordinator, Quality Management Division, College of Phy- sicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 80 College Street, Toronto, ON, Can- ada M5G 2E2; E-mail: rreardon@cpso.on.ca