Five Minutes with . . . Wellcome Trust’s Nicola Perrin

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i278

2016-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The UK biomedical research charity the Wellcome Trust has appointed an independent panel to review requests to access data from industry sponsored clinical trials. The BMJ asked the trust’s head of policy, Nicola Perrin, to explain why

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Barriers and best practices to improving clinical trials transparency at UK public research institutions: A qualitative interview study

Nicholas J DeVito,Jessica Morley,Ben Goldacre,Nicholas J. DeVito

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.104991

IF: 3.255

2024-04-01

Health Policy

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: Since 2017, the UK government has made concerted efforts to ensure the dissemination of clinical trials conducted at public research institutions. This study aims to understand how stakeholders within these institutions responded to these pressures and modified internal policies and processes while identifying best practices and barriers to improved transparency practice.METHODS: Research governance and trial management staff from UK public research institutions (i.e., Universities and NHS Trusts) in England, Scotland and Wales participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis, aided by the framework method.RESULTS: Between November 2020 and July 2021, 14 individual participants were recruited from 11 different institutions. They worked in research governance, administration, and management. Almost universally, new policies and procedures have been established to ensure investigators are aware of, and supported in, fulfilling their transparency commitments, however challenges remain. Trials of medicinal products, as the most closely regulated research, consequently received the most attention. National professional networks aid in sharing knowledge and best practice within this community.CONCLUSIONS: Investment in the institutional governance of transparency is essential to achieving optimal transparency practices. Universities and hospitals share responsibility for ensuring research is performed and reported to regulatory standards. Facing political pressure, public research institutions in the UK have made efforts to improve their transparency practice which can provide key insights for similar efforts elsewhere.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
The advantages of UK Biobank's open‐access strategy for health research

M. Conroy,J. Sellors,M. Effingham,T. J. Littlejohns,C. Boultwood,L. Gillions,C. L. M. Sudlow,R. Collins,N. E. Allen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12955

2019-08-02

Journal of Internal Medicine

Abstract:<p>Ready access to health research studies is becoming more important as researchers, and their funders, seek to maximise the opportunities for scientific innovation and health improvements. Large‐scale population‐based prospective studies are particularly useful for multidisciplinary research into the causes, treatment and prevention of many different diseases. UK Biobank has been established as an open‐access resource for public health research, with the intention of making the data as widely available as possible in an equitable and transparent manner. Access to UK Biobank's unique breadth of phenotypic and genetic data has attracted researchers worldwide from across academia and industry. As a consequence, it has enabled scientists to perform world‐leading collaborative research. Moreover, open access to an already deeply characterized cohort has encouraged both public and private sector investment in further enhancements to make UK Biobank an unparalleled resource for public health research and an exemplar for the development of open access approaches for other studies.</p>

medicine, general & internal
Public Supports Commercial Access to Patient Records when Public Benefit is Clear.

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1414

2016-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:Most people are willing to have their health records used by commercial organisations, as long as there is a clear public benefit and it is not solely for private profit. The conclusions emerged from one of the most detailed studies yet into what the public thinks about the use of its data by commercial organisations.1 The Wellcome Trust commissioned Ipsos MORI to carry out the research, which included workshops and a poll of 2000 people. The aim was to inform and influence a review being carried out for the health secretary for England, Jeremy Hunt, by Fiona Caldicott, the national data guardian. The Caldicott review, which is expected to be published soon, will include …
Five Minutes with . . . Ian Green

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1751

2016-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The chief executive of the Terrence Higgins Trust responds to NHS England’s decision not to fund pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV
Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens

Lesley Dunleavy,Ruth Board,Seamus Coyle,Andrew Dickman,John Ellershaw,Amy Gadoud,Jaime Halvorsen,Nick Hulbert-Williams,Liz Lightbody,Stephen Mason,Amara Callistus Nwosu,Andrea Partridge,Sheila Payne,Nancy Preston,Brooke Swash,Vanessa Taylor,Catherine Walshe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11886-0

2024-11-23

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:Health care staff should be given the opportunity to participate in research, but recruiting clinicians via their employing organisation is not always straightforward or quick in the UK. Unlike many countries outside the UK, very low-risk survey, interview or focus group studies can be subject to some of the same governance approval procedures as interventional studies. An exemplar study carried out by the NIHR funded Palliative Care Research Partnership North West Coast is used to highlight the challenges still faced by researchers and health care organisations when setting up a low-risk staff study across multiple NHS and non-NHS sites.

health care sciences & services
The use of routinely collected patient data for research: a critical review

Victoria Foster,Alys Young,Medicines for Neonates Investigator Group,Neena Modi,Peter Brocklehurst,Jane Abbott,Kate Costeloe,David Field,Azeem Majeed,Jacquie Kemp,Deborah Ashby,Stavros Petrou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459311425513

Abstract:Over recent years in the UK there has been growing interest in the potential for routinely collected NHS (National Health Service) patient data to be used for secondary purposes, facilitated by the potential of increasingly sophisticated electronic databases. This article is based on a critically reflective literature review which analyses the key debates pertaining to this issue. The work arose in the context of a programme of research concerning routine patient data use in neonatal care. The article includes analysis of commentary (opinion and ethical inquiry) as well as empirically derived claims. It aims to deconstruct the knowledge assumptions on which relevant research studies have been based or are proposed and it also incorporates ontological position and moral argument. Results are presented according to three predominant debates: the prevailing claim that all health research benefits civic society; the varieties of informed consent and choices open to patients regarding secondary uses of their data; and the 'rights and responsibilities' of patients when it comes to their data being used for research purposes. It examines the relevance of these themes specifically to the neonatal context and the implications for our own research, concluding that employing an alternative ethical model to the traditional professional one might be useful in order to provide a further perspective on the issue.
Maximising value from a United Kingdom Biomedical Research Centre: study protocol

Trisha Greenhalgh,Pavel V Ovseiko,Nick Fahy,Sara Shaw,Polly Kerr,Alexander D Rushforth,Keith M Channon,Vasiliki Kiparoglou,Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation cross-cutting theme of the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford,Maxine Allen,Jeroen Bergmann,Denise Best,Jacqueline Birks,Chas Bountra,Alastair Buchan,Gary Collins,Stuart Faulkner,Gary Ford,John Geddes,Alastair Gray,Louise Locock,Alison Noble,Christopher Pugh,Mark Sheehan,Joel Smith,Adam Stoten,Charles Vincent,Glenn Wells,Paul Whyte

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0237-1

2017-08-14

Abstract:Background: Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) are partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities in England. Their mission is to generate novel treatments, technologies, diagnostics and other interventions that increase the country's international competitiveness, to rapidly translate these innovations into benefits for patients, and to improve efficiency and reduce waste in healthcare. As NIHR Oxford BRC (Oxford BRC) enters its third 5-year funding period, we seek to (1) apply the evidence base on how best to support the various partnerships in this large, multi-stakeholder research system and (2) research how these partnerships play out in a new, ambitious programme of translational research. Methods: Organisational case study, informed by the principles of action research. A cross-cutting theme, 'Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation' has been established with multiple sub-themes (drug development, device development, business support and commercialisation, research methodology and statistics, health economics, bioethics, patient and public involvement and engagement, knowledge translation, and education and training) to support individual BRC research themes and generate cross-theme learning. The 'Partnerships' theme will support the BRC's goals by facilitating six types of partnership (with patients and citizens, clinical services, industry, across the NIHR infrastructure, across academic disciplines, and with policymakers and payers) through a range of engagement platforms and activities. We will develop a longitudinal progress narrative centred around exemplar case studies, and apply theoretical models from innovation studies (Triple Helix), sociology of science (Mode 2 knowledge production) and business studies (Value Co-creation). Data sources will be the empirical research studies within individual BRC research themes (who will apply separately for NHS ethics approval), plus documentary analysis and interviews and ethnography with research stakeholders. This study has received ethics clearance through the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee. Discussion: We anticipate that this work will add significant value to Oxford BRC. We predict accelerated knowledge translation; closer alignment of the innovation process with patient priorities and the principles of responsible, ethical research; reduction in research waste; new knowledge about the governance and activities of multi-stakeholder research partnerships and the contexts in which they operate; and capacity-building that reflects the future needs of a rapidly-evolving health research system.
Changes To Sharing Medical Records Could Damage Research, Report Warns

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2371

2018-01-01

Abstract:From 25 May patients in the UK have a simpler way of choosing not to share their patient records, a change that could damage health related research, a report from the King’s Fund warns.1The change has been introduced at the same time as the General Data Protection Regulation, which has been discussed widely as organisations email people on their lists to seek their permission to continue doing so.But the change to the NHS opt-out has been less widely publicised, and no special effort has been made to convince patients that their data will be safe and that using the data could improve care and the way the NHS is run.The …
The UK research ethics committee: Making the case for better serving the underserved – can we do better?

Matthew Parsons,James Ratcliff,Bernadette Egan,Hana Hassanin,Aftab Ala

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinme.2023.100012

IF: 5.41

2024-01-01

Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Research ethics committees exist internationally to review research proposals to protect the rights and safety of human participants and researchers involved in research. These committees recruit a panel of expert and lay members, mostly on an unpaid voluntary basis, with relevant scientific experience to appraise these studies. Contemporary data in the UK show that women and people over 55 years old are overrepresented in these committee panels in the Health Research Authority, suggesting that there are potential barriers to inclusivity and participation. A variety of global approaches to tackle these barriers include targeting specific populations, such as faith or community leaders, or implementing quotas have been adopted. Further research is needed to understand likely barriers preventing participation in research ethics committees in the UK and how they may be overcome.

medicine, general & internal
EFSPI/PSI working group on data sharing: accessing and working with pharmaceutical clinical trial patient level datasets – a primer for academic researchers

Rebecca Sudlow,Janice Branson,Tim Friede,David Morgan,Caroline Whately-Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0171-x

2016-07-01

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:BackgroundAccess to patient level datasets from clinical trial sponsors continues to be an important topic for the Pharmaceutical Industry as well as academic institutions and researchers. How to make access to patient level data actually happen raises many questions from the perspective of the researcher.MethodsPatient level data access models of all major pharmaceutical companies were surveyed and recommendations made to guide academic researchers in the most efficient way through the process of requesting and accessing patient level data.ResultsThe key considerations for researchers covered here are finding information; writing a research proposal to request data access; the review process; how data are shared; and the expectations of the data holder. A lot of clinical trial information is available on public registries and so these are great sources of information. Depending on the research proposal the required information may be available in Clinical Study Reports and therefore patient level data may not need to be requested. Many data sharing systems have an electronic form or template but in cases where these are not available the proposal needs to be created as a stand-alone document outlining the purpose, statistical analysis plan, identifying the studies for which data are required, the research team members involved, any conflicts of interest and the funding for the research.There are three main review processes - namely having an internal review board, external review board selected by the data holder or an external review board selected by a third party. Data can be shared through Open access i.e. on a public website, direct sharing between the data holder and the researcher, controlled access or the data holder identifies a contract organization to access the data and perform the analyses on behalf of the researcher. The data that are shared will have accompanying documentation to assist the researcher in understanding the original clinical trial and data collection methods. The data holder will require a legally binding data sharing agreement to be set up with the researcher. Additionally the data holder may be available to provide some support to the researcher if questions arise.ConclusionWhilst the benefits and value of patient level data sharing have yet to be fully realised, we hope that the information outlined in this article will encourage researchers to consider accessing and re-using clinical trial data to support their research questions.

health care sciences & services
UK must maximise benefits to society from "rich" health data, says independent review

Brian Kennedy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2475

2024-11-09

BMJ

Abstract:Access to the UK's rich and vast banks of health data should be streamlined and simplified, to capitalise on the unique opportunity it offers to boost biomedical research and improve lives, a major review has recommended.The independent review led by neurologist Cathie Sudlow was commissioned by England's chief medical officer to examine how to overcome barriers and inefficiencies in the secure use of health data across the four UK nations, with a focus on England.1The UK has one of the world's largest and deepest health databases that stretches back decades. The report points out that, besides being used for patient care, the data are also used to support the delivery of equitable health and care, as well as research and innovation.Data relevant to health also come from sources beyond the NHS. The review argues that, to fulfil the potential of health data to improve lives, governments should collate data on...

medicine, general & internal
Barriers and opportunities for enhancing patient recruitment and retention in clinical research: findings from an interview study in an NHS academic health science centre

Mary Adams,Louise Caffrey,Christopher McKevitt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-13-8

2015-03-12

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:BackgroundIn the UK, the recruitment of patients into clinical research is a national health research and development policy priority. There has been limited investigation of how national level factors operate as barriers or facilitators to recruitment work, particularly from the perspective of staff undertaking patient recruitment work. The aim of this study is to identify and examine staff views of the key organisational barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment work in one clinical research group located in an NHS Academic Health Science Centre.MethodsA qualitative study utilizing in-depth, one-to-one semi-structured interviews with 11 purposively selected staff with particular responsibilities to recruit and retain patients as clinical research subjects. Thematic analysis classified interview data by recurring themes, concepts, and emergent categories for the purposes of establishing explanatory accounts.ResultsThe findings highlight four key factors that staff perceived to be most significant for the successful recruitment and retention of patients in research and identify how staff located these factors within patients, studies, the research centre, the trust, and beyond the trust. Firstly, competition for research participants at an organisational and national level was perceived to undermine recruitment success. Secondly, the tension between clinical and clinical research workloads was seen to interrupt patient recruitment into studies, despite national funding arrangements to manage excess treatment costs. Thirdly, staff perceived an imbalance between personal patient burden and benefit. Ethical committee regulation, designed to protect patients, was perceived by some staff to detract from clarification and systematisation of incentivisation strategies. Finally, the structure and relationships within clinical research teams, in particular the low tacit status of recruitment skills, was seen as influential.ConclusionsThe results of this case-study, conducted in an exemplary NHS academic research centre, highlight current systematic challenges to patient recruitment and retention in clinical studies more generally as seen from the perspective of staff at the 'sharp end’ of recruiting. Staff experience is that, beyond individual clinical research design and protocol factors, wider organisational and extra-organisational norms, structures, and processes operate as significant facilitators or hindrances in the recruitment of patients as research subjects.

health policy & services
NICE to Advise Firms on How to Speed Up NHS Adoption of Their Drugs

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2813

2015-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is to set up a new Office of Market Access to advise companies producing new drugs on how to speed up their adoption by the NHS.The decision, discussed at a NICE board meeting on 20 May, was outlined on 21 May at a Westminster Forum seminar on healthcare research by Carole Longson, NICE’s director of health technology evaluation. Research was the key to generating new drugs, she said, and moves to accelerate the adoption of new products were being encouraged by regulators in the form of early access schemes, where drugs may be approved on much less evidence than in the past.In this new environment, she asked, “Is NICE sending the right signals to the research environment, and are we doing it in a way that can be picked up?” She answered her own question by admitting, “Well, I think we can do …
Creating a Single Application and Approval Process to Enable Research; an example using CPRD Primary Care Data and Public Health England Cancer Registry Data

Sophia Amjad,Rachael Williams,Rachael Brannan,Tariq Malik,Janet Valentine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v1i1.332

2017-04-19

International Journal of Population Data Science

Abstract:ABSTRACTObjectivesTo enhance the research value and capability of its primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) has collaborated with Public Health England (PHE)’s National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service to facilitate access to linked cancer registration data for use in research, pharmacovigilance, drug monitoring and health outcomes analysis. Since 2009, access to this linked resource has been co-managed by CPRD and PHE, through two parallel, independent approvals processes: (a) the MHRA Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) and (b) the PHE Office for Data Release (ODR). In upholding the Office for Life Science Ministerial Industry Strategy Group (Health Data Programme)’s vision to minimise process barriers to accessing real world data, CPRD and PHE have worked together to unify and streamline these two processes into a single end-to-end application and approval process. ApproachEach organisation reviewed each other’s approval processes to achieve an improved mutual understanding of the respective organisation’s governance approach, the risk based assessments applied to disclosure risk, risk appetites and policies, with the goal to harmonise these into a single approval process. ResultsCPRD and PHE are finalising a contract establishing a clear operating framework allowing CPRD to grant approval to researchers for the use of linked cancer registry data. The contract names CPRD as a joint data controller and sets out the purposes for processing, the manner of processing and the means by which joint data controller responsibilities will be satisfied. An associated service level agreement is in discussion which will enable robust timelines and performance management for both organisations. These developments are important milestones towards achieving the single approval process by allowing CPRD to review applications for cancer registry data in-house, simultaneously to the ISAC review. ConclusionThe strong relationship built between CPRD and PHE, and willingness to develop a single application and approval process, will strengthen and streamline access to these data, whilst assuring patients and the public that scientific integrity is maintained and proportionate information governance checks are in place. Upon completion of this work, applicants will experience associated faster review and feedback time, ultimately leading to faster approvals. Researchers wishing to utilise these linked data will soon be able to submit one application to ISAC, have one point of contact and one approval.
Improving clinical trial transparency at UK universities: Evaluating 3 years of policies and reporting performance on the European Clinical Trial Register

Sarai Mirjam Keestra,Florence Rodgers,Sophie Gepp,Peter Grabitz,Till Bruckner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745211071015

2022-02-16

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Background: January 2019, the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee sent letters to UK universities admonishing them to achieve compliance with results reporting requirements for Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products by summer 2019. This study documents changes in the clinical trial policies and Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Product reporting performance of 20 major UK universities following that intervention. Methods: Freedom of Information requests were filed in June 2018 and June 2020 to obtain clinical trial registration and reporting policies covering both Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products and all other clinical trials. Two independent reviewers assessed policies against transparency benchmarks based on World Health Organization best practices. To evaluate universities’ trial reporting performance, we used a public online tracking tool, the European Union Trials Tracker, which assesses universities’ compliance with regulatory Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Product disclosure requirements on the European Clinical Trial Register. Specifically, we evaluated whether universities were adhering to the European Union requirement to post summary results on the trial registry within 12 months of completion. Results: Mean policy strength increased from 2.8 to 4.9 points (out of a maximum of 7 points) between June 2018 and June 2020. In October 2018 the average percentage of due Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products that had results available on the European trial registry across university sponsors included in the cohort was 29%. By June 2021, this had increased to 91%, with 5 universities achieving a reporting performance of 100%. All 20 universities reported more than 70% of their due trial results on the European trial registry. Interpretation: Political pressure appears to have a significant positive impact on UK universities’ clinical trial reporting policies and performance. Similar approaches could be used to improve reporting performance for other types of sponsors, other types of trials, and in other countries.

medicine, research & experimental
Challenges for funders in monitoring compliance with policies on clinical trials registration and reporting: analysis of funding and registry data in the UK

Rachel L Knowles,Kam Pou Ha,Julia Mueller,Frances Rawle,Rosa Parker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035283

IF: 3.006

2020-02-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To evaluate compliance by researchers with funder requirements on clinical trial transparency, including identifying key areas for improvement; to assess the completeness, accuracy and suitability for annual compliance monitoring of the data routinely collected by a research funding body. Design Descriptive analysis of clinical trials funded between February 2011 and January 2017 against funder policy requirements. Setting Public medical research funding body in the UK. Data sources Relevant clinical trials were identified from grant application details, post-award grant monitoring systems and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry. Main outcome measure The proportion of all Medical Research Council (MRC)-funded clinical trials that were (a) registered in a clinical trial registry and (b) publicly reported summary results within 2 years of completion. Results There were 175 grants awarded that included a clinical trial and all trials were registered in a public trials registry. Of 62 trials completed for over 24 months, 42 (68%) had publicly reported the main findings by 24 months after trial completion; 18 of these achieved this within 12 months of completion. 11 (18%) trials took >24 months to report and 9 (15%) completed trials had not yet reported findings. Five datasets were shared with other researchers. Conclusions Compliance with the funder policy requirements on trial registration was excellent. Reporting of the main findings was achieved for most trials within 24 months of completion; however, the number of unreported trials remains a concern and should be a focus for future funder policy initiatives. Identifying trials from grant management and grant monitoring systems was challenging therefore funders should ensure investigators reliably provide trial registries with information and regularly update entries with details of trial publications and protocols.

medicine, general & internal
WHO Refers $29m Oxford Research Project to GMC for Misconduct

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5971

2016-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The World Health Organization has referred leading Oxford University researchers to the UK General Medical Council after an independent review found that they committed research ethics misconduct. The referral is the culmination of a long running dispute involving Jose Villar of the Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Oxford and Stephen Kennedy, head of the department and professor of reproductive medicine. They lead Intergrowth-21st, an international study of fetal growth funded by a $29m (£23.2m; €26m) grant from the Gates Foundation. Ever since they won the grant in 2008 there have been grumbles from rival researchers that they did so by exploiting ideas developed as part of a WHO project with the same aim. Villar worked at WHO as coordinator of maternal and perinatal health before his appointment to an Oxford chair in 2006, and both men were involved in developing the protocol for a proposed extension of WHO’s child …
Data-driven research and healthcare: public trust, data governance and the NHS

Angeliki Kerasidou,Charalampia Xaroula Kerasidou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00922-z

2023-07-14

Abstract:It is widely acknowledged that trust plays an important role for the acceptability of data sharing practices in research and healthcare, and for the adoption of new health technologies such as AI. Yet there is reported distrust in this domain. Although in the UK, the NHS is one of the most trusted public institutions, public trust does not appear to accompany its data sharing practices for research and innovation, specifically with the private sector, that have been introduced in recent years. In this paper, we examine the question of, what is it about sharing NHS data for research and innovation with for-profit companies that challenges public trust? To address this question, we draw from political theory to provide an account of public trust that helps better understand the relationship between the public and the NHS within a democratic context, as well as, the kind of obligations and expectations that govern this relationship. Then we examine whether the way in which the NHS is managing patient data and its collaboration with the private sector fit under this trust-based relationship. We argue that the datafication of healthcare and the broader 'health and wealth' agenda adopted by consecutive UK governments represent a major shift in the institutional character of the NHS, which brings into question the meaning of public good the NHS is expected to provide, challenging public trust. We conclude by suggesting that to address the problem of public trust, a theoretical and empirical examination of the benefits but also the costs associated with this shift needs to take place, as well as an open conversation at public level to determine what values should be promoted by a public institution like the NHS.
Wellcome's response to letter calling for focus on integrated academic training in reform of academic medicine

Michael Dunn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1895

2024-09-03

BMJ

Abstract:We understand Spencer's concerns about reform of academic medicine.1 At Wellcome, we share the belief that integrating academic training with clinical demands is crucial. Clinical academics work at the interface of medicine and cutting edge research. Their skills and experience are critical in ensuring we can translate research into improvements in the health and wellbeing of people in the UK and beyond.It's important to clarify, however, that Wellcome has not discontinued its support for clinical doctorates. We continue to fund successful doctoral programmes targeted at supporting clinical academics and allied health professionals.2The declining number of clinical researchers is concerning. We've called on the government to tackle this3 and we are working with key partners in the UK to coordinate our clinical training activities more effectively. Clinical researchers are an important part of our discovery research portfolio and it's vital that all the key players in the UK rise to the...

medicine, general & internal
Advertising Campaign Highlights Value of Medical Record Data

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g211

2014-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:Eight UK medical research organisations have launched a campaign promoting the use of anonymised medical records to improve healthcare. They fear that a new leaflet from NHS England, which details plans to access patients’ data, will alarm some people and cause them to opt out, potentially damaging the usefulness of the database. The original plan had been to begin extracting patients’ data from GPs in autumn last year, but this was pushed back to March 2014 after GPs complained they had not been given enough time to inform patients of their right to opt out. NHS England agreed to launch a national awareness campaign to ensure that nobody could claim that …

Five Minutes with . . . Wellcome Trust’s Nicola Perrin

Barriers and best practices to improving clinical trials transparency at UK public research institutions: A qualitative interview study

The advantages of UK Biobank's open‐access strategy for health research

Public Supports Commercial Access to Patient Records when Public Benefit is Clear.

Five Minutes with . . . Ian Green

Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens

The use of routinely collected patient data for research: a critical review

Maximising value from a United Kingdom Biomedical Research Centre: study protocol

Changes To Sharing Medical Records Could Damage Research, Report Warns

The UK research ethics committee: Making the case for better serving the underserved – can we do better?

EFSPI/PSI working group on data sharing: accessing and working with pharmaceutical clinical trial patient level datasets – a primer for academic researchers

UK must maximise benefits to society from "rich" health data, says independent review

Barriers and opportunities for enhancing patient recruitment and retention in clinical research: findings from an interview study in an NHS academic health science centre

NICE to Advise Firms on How to Speed Up NHS Adoption of Their Drugs

Creating a Single Application and Approval Process to Enable Research; an example using CPRD Primary Care Data and Public Health England Cancer Registry Data

Improving clinical trial transparency at UK universities: Evaluating 3 years of policies and reporting performance on the European Clinical Trial Register

Challenges for funders in monitoring compliance with policies on clinical trials registration and reporting: analysis of funding and registry data in the UK

WHO Refers $29m Oxford Research Project to GMC for Misconduct

Data-driven research and healthcare: public trust, data governance and the NHS

Wellcome's response to letter calling for focus on integrated academic training in reform of academic medicine

Advertising Campaign Highlights Value of Medical Record Data