The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lewison G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2441955 | biostudies-other | 2008 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: There is an increasing need to understand the wider impacts of research on society and the economy. For health research, a key focus is understanding the impact of research on practice and ultimately on patient outcomes. This can be challenging to measure, but one useful proxy for changes in practice is impact on guidelines. Methods: The aim of this study is to map the contribution of UK research and UK research funders to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) public health guidelines, understanding areas of strengths and weakness and the level of collaboration and coordination across countries and between funders. The work consisted of two main elements: analysis of the references cited on NICE guidelines and interviews with experts in public health. Results: Across the papers cited on 62 NICE public health guidelines, we find that 28% of the papers matched include at least one UK affiliation, which is relatively high when compared to other health fields. In total, 165 unique funders were identified with more than three acknowledgements, based in 20 countries. 68% of papers which acknowledge funding cite at least one UK funder, and NIHR is the most highly cited funder in the sample. Conclusions: The UK makes an important contribution to public health research cited on NICE PH guidelines, although the research does not appear to be bibliometrically distinct from other research sectors, other than having a relatively low level of international collaboration. However, the extent to which NICE public health guidelines reflect practice at the local authority level is less clear. More research is needed to understand the sources of evidence to support public health decision making at the local level and how NICE guidance can be made more applicable, timely and accessible in this new context.
| S-EPMC7845157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The past decade has seen major investment in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Among the many goals of GWAS, a major one is to identify and motivate research on novel genes involved in complex human disease. To assess whether this goal is being met, we quantified the effect of GWAS on the overall distribution of biomedical research publications and on the subsequent publication history of genes newly associated with complex disease. We found that the historical skew of publications toward genes involved in Mendelian disease has not changed since the advent of GWAS. Genes newly implicated by GWAS in complex disease do experience additional publications compared to control genes, and they are more likely to become exceptionally studied. But the magnitude of both effects has declined over the past decade. Our results suggest that reforms to encourage follow-up studies may be needed for GWAS to most successfully guide biomedical research toward the molecular mechanisms underlying complex human disease.
| S-EPMC6090631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe evaluated animal-based biomedical 'breakthroughs' reported in the UK national press in 1995 (25 years prior to the conclusion of this study). Based on evidence of overspeculative reporting of biomedical research in other areas (eg, press releases and scientific papers), we specifically examined animal research in the media, asking, 'In a given year, what proportion of animal research "breakthroughs"' published in the UK national press had translated, more than 20 years later, to approved interventions?'MethodsWe searched the Nexis media database (LexisNexis.com) for animal-based biomedical reports in the UK national press. The only restrictions were that the intervention should be specific, such as a named drug, gene, biomedical pathway, to facilitate follow-up, and that there should be claims of some clinical promise.Main outcome measuresWere any interventions approved for human use? If so, when and by which agency? If not, why, and how far did development proceed? Were any other, directly related interventions approved? Did any of the reports overstate human relevance?ResultsOverspeculation and exaggeration of human relevance was evident in all the articles examined. Of 27 unique published 'breakthroughs', only one had clearly resulted in human benefit. Twenty were classified as failures, three were inconclusive and three were partially successful.ConclusionsThe results of animal-based preclinical research studies are commonly overstated in media reports, to prematurely imply often-imminent 'breakthroughs' relevant to human medicine.
| S-EPMC8647573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Clinical Research Networks of the National Institute of Health Research have transformed clinical research in the UK, leading to a doubling in the number of patients involved in clinical research studies over the past 3 years. This has been achieved by streamlining the trials approvals process, by providing local infrastructure such as research nurse support for clinical trials recruitment and through recognition of the time and funding necessary for clinicians to contribute to clinical research. Here, we describe the structure and roles of the Comprehensive Clinical Research Networks in gastrointestinal disease and hepatology, particularly in England. We will explain how the networks have already accelerated clinical research in gastrointestinal and liver disease, as well as provide a simple guide about how individual clinicians can contribute to ongoing studies via the networks.
| S-EPMC5517261 | biostudies-other
Project description:Despite huge sums spent on academic clinical raining worldwide there is surprisingly little research to inform policymakers. This study addresses the junior faculty in the UK's cancer research community through both current Fellows and senior clinicians and policymakers. Funding organisations under the National Cancer Research Institute umbrella currently support 176 junior faculty fellows (studying towards MD [2 year postgraduate research degree] or PhD) with the majority in medical oncology (49%). Craft specialities (surgery and pathology) had a very modest presence in the junior faculty. The cancer research specific junior faculty makes up a major component of all available junior faculty from National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) partners (ca. 31%) and is supported both by direct funding to Fellows and via junior faculty positions on clinical programme grants. There was almost universal support for the value of the research experience despite only two thirds of the current cohort expressing a desire to continue to the next level (Clinician Scientist grade). Major issues identified were mentorship, supervision time, pay parity and fit with new UK Clinical Research Collaboration / Modernising Medical Careers (UKCRC/MMC) clinician training programme.
| S-EPMC5543842 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Key challenges for mental health healthcare professionals to implement research alongside clinical activity have been highlighted, such as insufficient time to apply research skills and lack of support and resources. We examined the impact of employing dedicated staff to promote research in community mental health clinical settings. DESIGN:Quasiexperiment before and after study. SETTING:South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust. PARTICIPANTS:4455 patients receiving care from 15 community mental health teams between 1 December 2013 and 31 December 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES:The proportion of patients approached for research participation in clinical services where research champions were present (intervention group), and where research champions were not present (comparison group). RESULTS:Patients in the intervention group were nearly six times more likely to be approached for research participation (Adj. OR=5.98; 95% CI 4.96 to 7.22). CONCLUSIONS:Investing in staff that promote and drive research in clinical services increases opportunities for patients to hear about and engage in clinical research studies. However, investment needs to move beyond employing short-term staff.
| S-EPMC5595181 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION:An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. METHODS:The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n?=?6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. RESULTS:Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. DISCUSSION:Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.
| S-EPMC7275320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate a training intervention aimed at improving healthcare professionals' communication with cancer patients about randomised clinical trials.DesignBefore and after evaluation of training programme.SettingMembers of the National Cancer Research Network, Scottish Trials Network, and the Welsh Cancer Trials Network.Participants101 healthcare professionals (33 clinicians and 68 research nurses).InterventionFour modules delivered by a trained facilitator using videotapes and interactive exercises to cover general issues about discussing randomised clinical trials with patients, problems specific to adjuvant trials, trials with palliation as the goal, and trials where patients had a strong preference for one treatment arm.Main outcome measuresBefore and after the intervention, participants were videotaped discussing a trial with an actor portraying a patient. These consultations were assessed for presence of information required by good clinical practice guidelines. The actor patients gave an assessment after each interview. Participants reported their self confidence about key aspects of trial discussion.ResultsAnalysis of the videotaped consultations showed that, after intervention, significantly more participants displayed key communication behaviours such as explaining randomisation (69 v 81, odds ratio 2.33, P = 0.033), checking patients' understanding (11 v 31, odds ratio 3.22, P = 0.002), and discussing standard treatment (73 v 88, odds ratio 4.75, P = 0.005) and side effects (69 v 85, odds ratio 3.29, P = 0.006). Participants' self confidence increased significantly (P < 0.001) across all areas. Actor patients' ratings of participants' communication showed significant improvements for 12/15 key items.ConclusionThis intensive 8 hour intervention significantly improved participants' confidence and competence when communicating about randomised clinical trials.
| S-EPMC549112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the feasibility of using research papers cited in clinical guidelines as a way to track the impact of particular funding streams or sources.SettingIn recent years, medical research funders have made efforts to enhance the understanding of the impact of their funded research and to provide evidence of the 'value' of investments in particular areas of research. One of the most challenging areas of research evaluation is around impact on policy and practice. In the UK, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provide clinical guidelines, which bring together current high-quality evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of clinical problems. Research referenced in these guidelines is an indication of its potential to have real impact on health policy and practice.DesignThis study is based on analysis of the authorship and funding attribution of research cited in two NICE clinical guidelines: dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.ResultsAnalysis identified that around a third of papers cited in the two NICE guidelines had at least one author based in the UK. In both cases, about half of these UK attributed papers contained acknowledgements which allowed the source of funding for the research to be identified. The research cited in these guidelines was found to have been supported by a diverse set of funders from different sectors. The study also investigated the contribution of research groups based in universities, industry and the public sector.ConclusionsThe study found that there is great potential for guidelines to be used as sources of information on the quality of the research used in their development and that it is possible to track the source of the funding of the research. The challenge is in harnessing the relevant information to track this in an efficient way.
| S-EPMC3317168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many reports of health research omit important information needed to assess their methodological robustness and clinical relevance. Without clear and complete reporting, it is not possible to identify flaws or biases, reproduce successful interventions, or use the findings in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) promotes responsible reporting and the use of reporting guidelines to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of health research. EQUATOR supports researchers by providing online resources and training. EQUATOR Oncology, a project funded by Cancer Research UK, aims to support cancer researchers reporting their research through the provision of online resources. In this article, our objective is to highlight reporting issues related to oncology research publications and to introduce reporting guidelines that are designed to aid high-quality reporting. We describe generic reporting guidelines for the main study types, and explain how these guidelines should and should not be used. We also describe 37 oncology-specific reporting guidelines, covering different clinical areas (e.g., haematology or urology) and sections of the report (e.g., methods or study characteristics); most of these are little-used. We also provide some background information on EQUATOR Oncology, which focuses on addressing the reporting needs of the oncology research community.
| S-EPMC5846057 | biostudies-literature