European Journal of Cancer
Volume 42, Issue 15 , Pages 2454-2458 , October 2006

Patients and health professionals working together to improve clinical research: Where are we going?

Received 27 April 2006 ,Revised 11 May 2006 ,Accepted 16 May 2006.

References 

  1. Catherine Beckman. Through the lens of a patient. bmj.com. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=1#129843; 2006 [accessed 15.03.06].
  2. Doug Fridsma. CaBIG and BRIDG. Presentation at NCRI informatics initiative 23rd and 24th January 2006. See: http://www.cancerinformatics.org.uk/workshops.htm#dsct.
  3. Messai R. A breast cancer terminology for lay people. Speaker proffered paper Friday 24th March 2006. In: Europa donna workshop: ‘Should advocates be involved in the design of clinical trials?’ 5th European Breast Cancer Conference, Nice, France.
  4. Wright David, Corner Jessica, Hopkinson Jane, Foster Claire. Listening to the views of people affected by cancer about cancer research: an example of participatory research in setting the cancer agenda. Health Expect. 2006;9:3–12
  5. Thornton Hazel, Edwards Adrian, Elwyn Glyn. Evolving the multiple rôles of ‘patients‘ in healthcare research: reflections after involvement in a trial of shared decision-making. Health Expect. 2003;6(3):189–197
  6. Roger Wilson. Email to NCRN Consumers list group. 11 January 2006 11.19 a.m.
  7. Report: Doctors in society. Medical professionalism in a changing world. Royal College of Physicians. London; 2005.
  8. http://www.pickereurope.org/pcp/rapidresponse.php?article=1&id=23. Janet Askham, Alison Chisholm. Patient-centred medical professionalism: towards an agenda for research and action. Picker Institute. March 2006.
  9. Baum, Michael. Speaking at the UKCCCR National Breast Cancer Trials Meeting in London in 1996.
  10. Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I. Testing treatment: better research for better healthcare. The British Library; 2006;
  11. Minerva, BMJ 2000;320:724 [Fertility Sterility 2000;73:292–9].
  12. National Cancer Research Network – Breast Cancer Trials Report. November 2002.
  13. NHS Research and Development (Cancer). Project No. NCP/D18. 1995.
  14. Thornton H. Identifying patients‘ and clinicians‘ priorities in cancer clinical trials. In:  Rawlings Sir Michael,  Littlejohns Peter editor. Delivering quality in the NHS 2005. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2005;
  15. Booklet written y a committee of patients and healthcare professionals working together under the chairmanship of Dr. Jane Maher. Breast Cancer and Hormones and HRT. Cancer Support and Information. Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital; May 1998.
  16. Marsden Jo, Bradburn Jane. Patient and clinician collaboration in the design of a national randomised breast cancer trial. Health Expect. 2004;7(1):6–17[See also: Thornton H. Letter to the Editor. Reporting dates is necessary to establish historical perspective – and validity of references. Health Expectations. 2004;7:268]
  17. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Atwell C, et al. Shared decision making and risk communication in general practice – a study incorporating systematic literature reviews, psychometric evaluation of outcome measures, and quantitative, qualitative and health economic analysis of a cluster randomised trial of professional skill development. Report to ‘Health in Partnership‘ programme, UK Department of Health. http://www.healthinpartnership.org/studies/edwards.html. Cardiff: Department of General Practice, University of Wales College of Medicine; 2002.
  18. Thornton Hazel, Dixon-Woods Mary. Recruitment of women into trials. Lancet. 2002;359:164
  19. House of Commons Health Select Committee Third Report. July 1995. HMSO. p.lvi.para 205.
  20. McNamee, David. Lancet Editorial: Public’s perception of RCTs. 1998;351:772.
  21. Thornton H. Today‘s patient: passive or involved?. Supplement to The Lancet 2000. 1999;354:siv48
  22. Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, Elbourne D, Chalmers I. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ. 2001;322:519–523
  23. Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(15):
  24. Telford R, Boote JD, Cooper CL. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expect. 2004;7:209–220
  25. Editorial Bastian Hilda. Consumer and researcher collaboration in trials: filling the gaps. Clinical Trials. 2005;2:3–4
  26. Review: Crawford M, Rutter D, Thelwell S. User involvement in change management: a review of the literature. 2003. NCC SDO (National Co-ordinating Centre Service Delivery and Organisation) (And other SDO ‘user involvement‘ reports on SDO website www.sdo.lshtm.ac.uk.
  27. Refractor. ‘Insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ in research collaborations? Lancet 2000;356:1038.
  28. Tannock IF. The role of the clinical/principal investigator. Presented paper Friday 24th March 2006. In: Europa Donna workshop: ‘Should advocates be involved in the design of clinical trials?’ 5th European Breast Cancer Conference, Nice, France.
  29. NHS Consumers in Research: INVOLVE. www.invo.org.uk See: Database of research projects.
  30. The James Lind Alliance. www.lindalliance.org.
  31. Kushner R. Breast cancer: a personal history and an investigative report. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch; 1975;
  32. Lerner BH. The breast cancer wars: hope, fear, and the pursuit of a cure in twentieth-century America. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003;
  33. DoH NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Annual Report 2005.Feb 2006. www.hta.ac.uk/annualreport.
  34. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, Jones D, Sutton A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. NHS HDA Report.
  35. Donovan J, Mills N, Brindle L, et al. Improving the design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: the ProtecT study. BMJ. 2002;325:
  36. Koops L, Lindley R. Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke: consumer involvement in design of new randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2002;325:415–417
  37. The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com.
  38. Editor‘s choice. My last choice. BMJ 2004;329. (Researchers drowning in bureaucracy.).
  39. Akseli Hemminki, Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen. Harmful impact of EU clinical trials directive. BMJ. 2006;332:501–502[And responses in BMJ 18th March 2006]
  40. Elwyn G, Seagrove A, Thorne K, Cheung WY. Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. BMJ. 2005;330:847
  41. Galbraith Niall, Hawley C, De-Souza V. Research governance approval is putting people off research. BMJ. 2006;332:238
  42. Julia Miller, et al. Honorary Research Contracts for Researchers working in Greater Manchester: The Research Passport. NHS April 2005 www.gmsha.nhs.uk/research/research_passport2005.pd.
  43. Thornton H. Whose idea is it?. BMJ. 2006;332:238
  44. Stephen Epstein S. Impure science. Aids, activism and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley and Los Angeles and London: University of California Press; 1996;p. 331–2

☆ From a presentation given at the 5th European Breast Cancer Conference (EBCC) Nice, France, 21st–25th March 2006 in a Europa Donna Workshop 24th March 2006, entitled: ‘Should advocates be involved in the design of clinical trials?’ against the given title: ‘Patient involvement in research (including the work of the Consumers‘ Advisory Group for Clinical Trials (CAG-CT)’.

PII: S0959-8049(06)00522-3

doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.05.022

European Journal of Cancer
Volume 42, Issue 15 , Pages 2454-2458 , October 2006

Article Tools