Medical research not addressing patient and clinician priorities

June 24, 2015, BioMed Central

Research on treatments for health problems, such as diabetes, stroke and schizophrenia, is not being focused on the treatments considered most important by patients and clinicians, according to a study published in the open access journal Research Involvement and Engagement.

The study suggests that current research is instead favoring drug treatments over physical or psychological therapies, or interventions to improve educational approaches or service organization.

Study author Iain Chalmers, one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration and James Lind Alliance, said: "We have confirmed earlier, less extensive studies indicating important mismatches between what patients and health professionals want to see researched, and the research that is actually done. On average, patients and clinicians prefer the evaluation of non-drug treatments, while researchers tend to prioritise studies into drug treatments.

"This discrepancy was first uncovered 15 years ago, and so it is disappointing that the situation still has not improved. The research community needs to make greater efforts to involve patients and in setting research agendas, and take account of their views."

The James Lind Alliance is an initiative that establishes partnerships between patients, carers and clinicians to inform treatment research agendas. Each of these 'Priority Setting Partnerships' (PSPs) identifies the top research priorities relating to specific health problems, including Type 1 diabetes, schizophrenia, stroke and eczema.

In the study, the researchers identified the research priorities of 14 PSPs, which highlighted 126 different treatments. They then compared these with the treatments being studied in UK clinical trials registered between 2003 and 2012 in the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. These included 1,682 research studies (53% non-commercial research, 47% commercially-funded).

The results revealed marked differences between the types of treatments highlighted by patients, carers and clinicians as priorities, and those being evaluated by researchers. In PSPs, drug interventions accounted for only 18% of the treatments mentioned as priorities, while they accounted for 37% of treatments evaluated in non-commercial trials and 86% of treatments evaluated in commercial trials.

A very low proportion (2.6%) of registered commercial trials studied the effects of the non-drug treatments that were priorities for patients and clinicians. The authors say this suggests that few of the drug trials can have used non-drug comparators, for example, comparing anti-depressant drugs with psychological therapies for treating depression.

The study suggests there may also be 'methodological disincentives' for researchers to include non-drug comparators. This is because designing, running and interpreting drug trials will usually be more straightforward compared with evaluating psychological or physical therapies, and other non-drug treatments.

The authors say that an obvious explanation for this mismatch is that the users of research evidence - patients, carers and clinicians - apparently only very rarely contribute to setting research agendas. Therefore the research questions rated as important to them may simply never occur to researchers.

They add: "If research is to reflect the priorities of patients and clinicians, leadership and incentives will be needed. The current research 'system' and culture is not geared to bridging the mismatch we have documented."

The authors warn that similar findings may not necessarily result in replication of similar analyses done for other , or for replications that are not limited to the very highest priorities that the PSPs aim to identify.

The research article marks the launch of the open access journal Research Involvement and Engagement, which recognises the importance of patient and the wider public input in co-producing knowledge. The Editorial Board is representative of both and academics, with all articles peer reviewed by both groups and carrying equal weight in the editorial decision.

Explore further: Clinical guidelines study finds potentially serious drug clashes

More information: Patients', clinicians' and the research communities' priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch, Sally Crowe, Mark Fenton, Matthew Hall, Katherine Cowan and Iain Chalmers, Research Involvement and Engagement 2015. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x

Related Stories

Clinical guidelines study finds potentially serious drug clashes

March 18, 2015
Blindly following recommendations for drug prescriptions in national clinical guidelines for conditions including diabetes, depression and heart failure will often result in potentially serious drug interactions, according ...

Parkinson's patients identify balance and anxiety among top 10 research priorities

December 15, 2014
Patients with Parkinson's, medics and carers have identified the top ten priorities for research into the management of the condition in a study by the University of East Anglia and Parkinson's UK.

Benefits of heroin treatment for drug users

April 14, 2015
Drug users who do not benefit from conventional treatments for heroin addiction should be able to access the drug through the health system, urges a Canadian expert in The BMJ today.

Clinical trials: Around half of new treatments perform better than existing treatments

October 16, 2012
On average, new treatments perform better in clinical trials only slightly more often than existing treatments, according to a new systematic review published in The Cochrane Library. The fact that experimental treatments ...

Cancer drugs get a new consumer guide

June 23, 2015
In a bid to inject clarity into the fast-moving, high-stakes world of cancer drugs, a task force of cancer doctors announced Monday that it has devised a decision-making aid to help physicians and their patients weigh the ...

Govt wants more clinical trial results made public

November 19, 2014
The government proposed new rules Wednesday to make it easier for doctors and patients to learn if clinical trials of treatments worked or not.

Recommended for you

Low-fat or low-carb? It's a draw, study finds

February 20, 2018
New evidence from a study at the Stanford University School of Medicine might dismay those who have chosen sides in the low-fat versus low-carb diet debate.

Tobacco kills, no matter how it's smoked: study

February 20, 2018
(HealthDay)—Smokers who think cigars or pipes are somehow safer than cigarettes may want to think again, new research indicates.

Just a few minutes of light intensity exercise linked to lower death risk in older men

February 19, 2018
Clocking up just a few minutes at a time of any level of physical activity, including of light intensity, is linked to a lower risk of death in older men, suggests research published online in the British Journal of Sports ...

Calcium and Vitamin D supplements are not associated with risk of heart attacks

February 16, 2018
New research from the University of Southampton has found no association between the use of calcium or vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular events such as heart attacks.

Women who clean at home or work face increased lung function decline

February 16, 2018
Women who work as cleaners or regularly use cleaning sprays or other cleaning products at home appear to experience a greater decline in lung function over time than women who do not clean, according to new research published ...

Study shows options to decrease risk of motor vehicle crashes for adolescent drivers

February 16, 2018
Adolescents who receive comprehensive and challenging on-road driving assessments prior to taking the license test might be protected from future motor vehicle crashes, according to a University of Alabama at Birmingham study ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.