Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Ensuring Value in Research: Consumer Perspectives & Some Missing Pieces

Hilda Bastian
November 27, 2018
360

Ensuring Value in Research: Consumer Perspectives & Some Missing Pieces

Hilda Bastian

November 27, 2018
Tweet

Transcript

  1. Ensuring Value in Research:
    Consumer Perspectives &
    Some Missing Pieces
    7th Annual NHMRC Symposium on
    Research Translation
    University of Sydney
    27 November 2018
    Hilda Bastian
    @hildabast
    hildabastian.net

    View Slide

  2. Disclosures
    •  No financial conflicts of interest

    View Slide

  3. View Slide

  4. View Slide

  5. Research waste model:
    Clinicians & patients not involved in setting research
    agendas.
    Chalmers & Glasziou (2009). DOI: 10.1016/
    S0140-6736(09)60329-9

    View Slide

  6. Ensuring Value in Research (EViR)
    Funders’ Forum model:
    Principle 1:
    Health-related research agendas and priorities should
    be set with the meaningful involvement of those who
    will use and be affected by health-related research.
    EViR: https://sites.google.com/view/evir-funders-forum/guiding-principles?authuser=0

    View Slide

  7. “The number of studies on patient and public
    involvement in HTA has increased in recent
    years… However, studies are still needed to
    assess the effectiveness of different strategies
    for involving patients and the public in HTA”.
    Tantchou et al (2018). DOI: 10.1017/S0266462317002744
    (Conference presentation of an update of a systematic review)

    View Slide

  8. It’s not enough to mean well:
    effects matter

    View Slide

  9. View Slide

  10. Could clinical experts predict
    which new anticancer drugs
    will impact care?
    “As the experts missed 37% of drugs that are in need of
    guidance, they should not be relied upon to select drugs relevant
    for evaluation”.
    Douw & Vondeling (2007). DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.022

    View Slide

  11. Lauer et al (2015). DOI: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306830
    Do grant peer reviewers’
    ratings correlate with
    grant productivity?
    [30 years of data] “discrimination was poor (area
    under receiver operating characteristic curve [ROC],
    0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.53)”

    View Slide

  12. Methods needed…
    •  For evaluating effectiveness
    •  How to involve – and be
    involved – effectively
    … Involvement not enough
    Hansen et al (2012). DOI: 10.2165/11539880-000000000-00000
    Bastian (2011). DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000547

    View Slide

  13. Bastian et al (2010). [German]
    https://www.egms.de/static/en/meetings/ebm2010/10ebm065.shtml
    Rights & “patient journey” approaches

    View Slide

  14. “The idealized expert-
    generated, one-way,
    authoritative reign of
    science is over.”
    Sobo et al (2016)
    DOI: 10.1080/01459740.2016.1145219

    View Slide

  15. View Slide

  16. “Top-down” dissemination of
    research isn’t the end of the line

    View Slide

  17. “Research Waste” model
    Chalmers & Glasziou (2009). DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9
    Glasziou (2014). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001651

    View Slide

  18. Ensuring Value in Research (EViR)
    Funders’ Forum model
    Principle 10:
    Research knowledge that can lead to benefit
    should be effectively disseminated to end users.
    Where appropriate, the usage of new
    knowledge should be supported and facilitated.
    EViR: https://sites.google.com/view/evir-funders-forum/guiding-principles?authuser=0

    View Slide

  19. •  Strengthen post-publication culture
    •  Consequences for non-response to important
    questions & criticism
    Südhof (2016). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002547
    Bastian (2014). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001772

    View Slide

  20. View Slide

  21. View Slide

  22. View Slide

  23. View Slide

  24. Methods research / meta-
    research should be done,
    funded, & used

    View Slide

  25. Example 1: Decision aids & data
    visualisation
    Schmacke et al (2008) [German]
    http://www.akg.uni-bremen.de/pages/
    arbeitspapierBeschreibung.php%3FID=27&SPRACHE=DE.html
    (Hirschberg et al (2013). DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-405)

    View Slide

  26. Stacey et a. 2011 version of the Cochrane review.

    View Slide

  27. View Slide

  28. We need to invest seriously in
    multiple levels of regularly updated,
    evidence-based patient information
    & its popularisation

    View Slide

  29. Example 2: The NNT
    Bastian (2015) https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2015/03/09/mind-your-
    ps-rrs-and-nnts-on-good-statistics-behavior/

    View Slide

  30. —  We need to communicate results in ways that
    can be used by non-specialists

    View Slide

  31. Values &
    Integrity
    Research &
    Analytical Skills
    Communication
    Skills &
    Literacies
    Cognitive Skills

    View Slide

  32. “[We] have made far more
    progress in cataloguing
    cognitive biases than in
    finding ways to correct
    them.”
    Lilienfield et al (2009).
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x

    View Slide

  33. Thanks!

    View Slide