Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31473872›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2020

Co-production and Managing Uncertainty in Health Research Regulation: A Delphi Study.

Isabel Fletcher, Stanislav Birko, Edward S Dove, Graeme T Laurie, Catriona McMillan, Emily Postan, Nayha Sethi, Annie Sorbie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Ethical Considerations in Research with Genomic Data.The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body · 2023
    Article
  3. Misdirection and the Regulation of Herbalism in France and England.Science & technology studies (Tampere, Finland) · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Isabel FletcherJ. Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, UK. I.Fletcher@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7066-502X
Stanislav BirkoSchool of Public Health, University of Montreal, 7101, Avenue du Parc, 3e étage, Montréal, QC, H3N 1X9, Canada.
Edward S DoveJ. Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, UK.
Graeme T LaurieJ. Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, UK.
Catriona McMillanJ. Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, UK.
Emily PostanJ. Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, UK.
Nayha SethiJ. Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 23 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LN, UK.
Annie SorbieJ. Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT103360MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

European and international regulation of human health research is typified by a morass of interconnecting laws, diverse and divergent ethical frameworks, and national and transnational standards. There is also a tendency for legislators to regulate in silos-that is, in discrete fields of scientific activity without due regard to the need to make new knowledge as generalisable as possible. There are myriad challenges for the stakeholders-researchers and regulators alike-who attempt to navigate these landscapes. This Delphi study was undertaken in order to provide the first interdisciplinary and crosscutting analysis of health research regulation, as it is experienced by such stakeholders in the UK context. As well as reinforcing existing understandings of the regulatory environment, Delphi participants called for greater collaboration, and even co-production, of processes involved in health research regulation. On the basis of this research, we offer insights about how health research regulation can become a matter with which a wider range of stakeholders-including researchers, regulators, publics and research sponsors-can engage. The evidence supports the normative claim that health research regulation should continue to move away from strict, prescriptive rules-based approaches, and towards flexible principle-based regimes that allow researchers, regulators and publics to co-produce regulatory systems serving core principles. By unpacking thorny concepts and practices at the heart of health research regulation-including the public interest and public engagement-our results have the potential to situate and breathe life into them. The results also demonstrate that while proportionality is well-recognised as a crucial element of flexible regulatory systems, more must be done to operationalise this as an ethical assessment of the values and risks at stake at multiple junctures in the research trajectory. This is required if we are to move beyond proportionality as a mere risk-management tool. Compliance culture no longer accurately reflects the needs and expectations of researchers or regulators, nor does it necessarily produce the best research. Embracing uncertainty-both as a human practice and a regulatory objective-may represent the brighter future for health research.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueHealth Services ResearchInternational CooperationUncertaintyHumansStakeholder ParticipationUnited KingdomCollaborationCo-productionHealth research regulationProportionalityPublic interestRegulatory stewardshipStakeholders

Identifiers

PMID31473872
PMCPMC7210237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.