Search

Building trust in public health agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become a key government priority. Understanding the roots of FDA mistrust is important if the agency is to develop targeted messaging and reforms aimed at building confidence in the agency. We conducted a survey of 2,021 respondents in the US probing attitudes toward the FDA. The primary outcome was FDA trust, defined as the mean score that each respondent assigned to the FDA across four prespecified axes: (1) competence and effectiveness; (2) commitment to acting in the best interests of the American public; (3) abiding by the rules and regulations set forth by policy or law; and (4) expertise in health, science, and medicine. On multivariable ordinal logistic regression, FDA mistrust was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.88), rural community (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.96), conservative political views (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.74–0.81), worse self‐reported health (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80–0.98), lower satisfaction with health care received (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56–0.71), less attention to health and science news (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64–0.80), and not having children under the age of 18 (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.86). These findings underscore the challenges faced by US political leaders in convincing a heterogeneous American public to trust the FDA. The FDA should develop and deploy targeted outreach strategies to populations with lower levels of trust and strengthen internal processes that minimize biases and ensure sound decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When there is an evidence base that could be used credibly to justify expedited US Food and Drug Administration review, emergency use authorization, or approval, interventions-in-development must be evaluated in terms of their possible downstream influence on public trust and confidence in regulatory processes during a national public health crisis. When regulatory decisions express overconfidence about a prospective intervention's success, there is risk that the costliness of or misinformation about the intervention will exacerbate health inequity. A converse risk is regulators' underestimation of an intervention's value in treating populations at risk for inequitable care. This article considers the nature and scope of clinicians' roles in regulatory processes in which such risks must be considered and balanced to promote public safety and public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors respond to a letter by Mitchell Berger in the March‐April 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report concerning their essay "Securing the Trustworthiness of the FDA to Build Public Trust in Vaccines." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]