Minor thing: Weinman and Petrie asked for their quote to be removed from Marks's PACE special edition editorial

[Esther12]

Marks DF (2017) Special issue on the PACE Trial.
Journal of Health Psychology
22(9): 1103–1105.
DOI: 10.1177/1359105317722370.
In the above referenced editorial, direct quotations from editorial correspondence had been included without permission for publication on page 1104. The online version of this editorial has now been corrected to remove these quotations.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1359105317749100

New on-line version: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317722370

Removed section:

Professors Weinman and Petrie adamantly deny that their work as advisers to Atlantis Healthcare represents a COI:

"We are very clear that there is not a COI that we need to declare. We have had nothing to do with the PACE trial and neither of us work on CFS. Our Atlantis link does not provide any conflicts as Atlantis focusses on supporting patient adherence to medication for various long term conditions, and has not had an involvement with patients with CFS." (Weinman and Petrie, 9 May 2017, email to David F Marks)

 

[Sean]

And this is what honest mistakes and corrections look like.

Over to you, PACEophiles...

 

[MeSci]

I was confused by the title - could the apostrophe be moved from 'Mark's' so that it reads 'Marks'' or 'Marks's'? I thought it related to our Mark!

 

[Barry]

Interesting. So they feel uncomfortable with their statement of adamantly denying a COI. I wonder why that might be? It feels like they sense some writing is on the wall. Well I shall not be crossing it out from my hard-paper copy.

 

[Esther12]

Interesting. So they feel uncomfortable with their statement of adamantly denying a COI. I wonder why that might be? It feels like they sense some writing is on the wall. Well I shall not be crossing it out from my hard-paper copy.

It seemed odd to me too. Maybe a long series of complaints were made, and this was the only one that was thought to warrant a response?

 

[guest001]

It seemed odd to me too. Maybe a long series of complaints were made, and this was the only one that was thought to warrant a response?

Whilst at the same time drawing more attention to their connections with Atlantis.

 

[MeSci]

I was confused by the title - could the apostrophe be moved from 'Mark's' so that it reads 'Marks'' or 'Marks's'? I thought it related to our Mark!

Thanks!

 

[Barry]

Whilst at the same time drawing more attention to their connections with Atlantis.

Quite so. Whilst at the same time drawing attention to the likelihood they are not so convinced they had no COI, and/or maybe that Atlantis has had an involvement with CFS patients?

 

[Woolie]

I actually didn't think their connections with Atlantis were in fact relevant (I checked it out and the work they were doing there was genuinely not related imo).

Doesn't mean I think any better of their piece (which was poor and deeply harmful to PwMEs). I just agree with them on that one specific point.