Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:00:45.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The advance of research governance in psychiatry: one step forward, two steps back

Part of: Special Articles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2013

V. C. Leeson  and
P. Tyrer
V. C. Leeson
Affiliation:
Centre for Mental Health, Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London W6 8RP, UK
P. Tyrer*
Affiliation:
Centre for Mental Health, Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London W6 8RP, UK
*
*Address for correspondence: P. Tyrer, Centre for Mental Health, Department of Medicine, Imperial College, St Dunstan's Road, London W6 8RP, UK. (Email: p.tyrer@imperial.ac.uk)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose.

To investigate the reasons behind difficulties in recruiting patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in psychiatry and to examine a database of RCTs for differences between studies in mental health and other specialities.

Methods.

A discussion of recent changes in research governance in the UK and Europe followed by an examination of the database of all trials supported by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute of Health Research in the UK between 1993 and 2007 to determine if three different measures, (i) time between grant approval and study start date, (ii) percentage of additional time given to extend recruitment and (iii) percentage of planned recruitment achieved, changed over the time period studied and differed between mental health, cancer and other medical disciplines.

Findings.

Despite attempts in the UK to accelerate the process of clinical trials in recent years, there was a significant increase in the extension time for trials to be completed (p = 0.038) and the percentage of planned recruitment to mental health studies (71%) was significantly less than for cancer (90.3%) and other studies (86.1%) (p = 0.032).

Summary.

These results suggest that, despite the priority afforded to the advancement of RCTs in healthcare, such studies are encountering increasing difficulty in recruiting to time and target. We suggest that this difficulty can be attributed, at least in part, to the excessively byzantine regulation and governance processes for health research in the UK, and unnecessary bureaucracy in the current National Health Service system. Mental health studies appear particularly vulnerable to delay and better systems to facilitate recruitment are required urgently for the evidence base to be improved and facilitate new cost-effective interventions.

Keywords

Evidence-based psychiatryhealth services researchmental healthRCTsresearch governance
Type
Special Article
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 313 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Academy of Medical Sciences (2011). A New Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research. Academy of Medical Sciences: London.Google Scholar
Ayuso-Mateos, JL, Wykes, T, Arango, C (2011). The Madrid Declaration: why we need a coordinated Europe-wide effort in mental health research. British Journal of Psychiatry 198, 253–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbui, C, Cipriani, A (2011). Cluster randomised trials. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 20, 307–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhaumik, S, Gangadharan, S, Hiremath, A, Russell, PS (2011). Psychological treatments in intellectual disability: the challenges of building a good evidence base. British Journal of Psychiatry 198, 428–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracken, P, Thomas, P, Timimi, S, Asen, E, Behr, G, Beuster, C, Bhunnoo, S, Browne, I, Chhina, N, Double, D, Downer, S, Evans, C, Fernando, S, Garland, MR, Hopkins, W, Huws, R, Johnson, B, Martindale, B, Middleton, H, Moldavsky, D, Moncrieff, J, Mullins, S, Nelki, J, Pizzo, M, Rodger, J, Smyth, M, Summerfield, D, Wallace, J, Yeomans, D (2012). Psychiatry beyond the current paradigm. British Journal of Psychiatry 201, 430–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, M, Fitzpatrick, R, Haines, A, Sandercock, P, Spiegelhalter, D, Tyrer, P (2000). A framework for the design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal 321, 694–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, I, Glasziou, P, Godlee, F (2013). All trials must be registered and the results published. British Medical Journal 346, f105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, DM (2011). Implementing NICE guidelines for the psychological treatment of depression and anxiety disorders: the IAPT experience. International Review of Psychiatry 23, 318–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochrane, AL (1972). Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services, 2nd edn.Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust: London.Google Scholar
European Commission (2012). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use, and Repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. European Commission: Brussels, 17th July 2012.Google Scholar
Gøtzsche, P (2012). Deficiencies in proposed new EU regulation of clinical trials. British Medical Journal 345, e8522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, P (2000). Treatment interventions and findings from research: bridging the chasm in child psychiatry. British Journal of Psychiatry 176, 414–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Insel, TR, Wang, PS (2009). The STAR*D trial: revealing the need for better treatments. Psychiatric Services 60, 1466–1467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, PB, Barnes, TR, Davies, L, Dunn, G, Lloyd, H, Hayhurst, KP, Murray, RM, Markwick, A, Lewis, SW (2006). Randomized controlled trial of the effect on Quality of Life of second- vs first-generation antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS 1). Archives of General Psychiatry 63, 1079–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, JA, Stroup, TS, McEvoy, JP, Swartz, MS, Rosenheck, RA, Perkins, DO, Keefe, RS, Davis, SM, Davis, CE, Lebowitz, BD, Severe, J, Hsiao, JK, Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) Investigators (2005). Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. New England Journal of Medicine 353, 1209–1223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, N, Douglas, L, Banerjee, S (2012). Contribution of research networks to a clinical trial of antidepressants in people with dementia. Journal of Mental Health 21, 439–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Memorandum of Understanding (2010). Memorandum of Understanding between MHRA, NRES, GTAC and AAPEC. Version 2. Retrieved 17 April 2012 from http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/l-ctu/documents/websiteresources/con084680.pdf.Google Scholar
Oliver-Africano, P, Dickens, S, Ahmed, Z, Bouras, N, Cooray, S, Deb, S, Knapp, M, Hare, M, Meade, M, Reece, B, Bhaumik, S, Harley, D, Piachaud, J, Regan, A, Ade Thomas, D, Karatela, S, Rao, B, Dzendrowskyj, T, Lenôtre, L, Watson, J, Tyrer, P (2010). Overcoming the barriers experienced in conducting a medication trial in adults with aggressive challenging behaviour and intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 54, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rendell, JM, Merritt, RD, Geddes, JR (2007). Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, April 18, Issue 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheard, L, Tompkins, CN, Wright, NM, Adams, CE (2006). Non-commercial clinical trials of a medicinal product: can they survive the current process of research approvals in the UK? Journal of Medical Ethics 32, 430–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuffs, A (2012). Germany opposes EU plans for regulating clinical trials owing to lack of ethical standards. British Medical Journal 345, e6640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P, Oliver-Africano, P, Romeo, R, Knapp, M, Dickens, S, Bouras, N, Ahmed, Z, Coooray, S, Deb, S, Murphy, D, Hare, M, Meade, M, Reece, B, Kramo, K, Bhaumik, S, Harley, D, Regan, A, Thomas, D, Rao, B, Karatela, S, Lenôtre, L, Watson, J, Soni, A, Crawford, M, Eliahoo, J & North, B (2009). Neuroleptics in the treatment of aggressive challenging behaviour for people with intellectual disabilities (NACHBID); randomised controlled trial. Health Technology Assessment 13, iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waligora, M. (2012). A European consistency for functioning of RECs? We just lost our chance. Journal of Medical Ethics, December 8. [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101228Google ScholarPubMed