Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
- Resource Allocation
- Allocation of Health Care Resources
- Research Ethics
- Interests of Health Personnel/Institutions
In When Clinical Trials Compete: Prioritizing Study Recruitment, Gelinas et al tackle an important issue—study non-completion—and draw conclusions with which we largely agree. Most importantly, we accept that setting priorities among competing research studies is necessary and should be informed by ethical analysis. We disagree with the conclusion of Gelinas et al that this priority setting should take place at the level of the individual research institution. At a minimum, they should consider other actors who might be better suited for this role instead of—or alongside—the institutions that host research.
Our view is motivated by three main considerations. First, research institutions have significant latitude to promote their own interests, and there is reason to suspect that their interests do not closely align with the interests of the public. Thus, asking research institutions to set research priorities may result in the selection of studies with suboptimal social value. Second, a large proportion of clinical trials recruits participants at multiple institutions.1 If each institution sets its own priorities, we can expect discrepancies between the priorities set by partner institutions. These discrepancies may delay and discourage collaborative research projects. Finally, we suspect that a great deal of recruitment competition occurs between, rather than within, research institutions. Setting priorities only at …
Contributors LP and JM developed the arguments in the manuscript. LP wrote the first draft. LP and JM revised the manuscript.
Funding National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review
- Adolescent mental health research in Tanzania: a study protocol for a priority setting exercise and the development of an interinstitutional capacity strengthening programme
- What matters most to patients about primary healthcare: mixed-methods patient priority setting exercises within the PREFeR (PRioritiEs For Research) project
- Institutions as an ethical locus of research prioritisation
- Patients, clinicians and researchers working together to improve cardiovascular health: a qualitative study of barriers and priorities for patient-oriented research
- Prognostic significance and immune correlates of CD73 expression in renal cell carcinoma
- Action to protect the independence and integrity of global health research
- The perspective of European researchers of national occupational safety and health institutes for contributing to a European research agenda: a modified Delphi study
- The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST): protocol for a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a trial of community-based CT screening for lung cancer
- When clinical trials compete: prioritising study recruitment