1
|
Hazo JB, Brunn M, Wykes T, McDaid D, Dorsey M, Demotes-Mainard J, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Wahlbeck K, Knappe S, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Obradors-Tarragó C, Haro JM, Leboyer M, Chevreul K. European mental health research resources: Picture and recommendations of the ROAMER project. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2019; 29:179-194. [PMID: 30579654 DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.11.1111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2018] [Revised: 11/13/2018] [Accepted: 11/15/2018] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
As part of the Roamer project, we sought to have a picture of the available mental health research (MHR) funding, capacity-building and infrastructures resources and to establish consensus-based recommendations that would allow an increase of European MHR resources and enable better use and accessibility to them. The methods fell into three sections (i) a review of the literature, (ii) a mental health-related keywords search within the Cordis®, On-Course® and Meril® databases which contain information on European research funding, training and infrastructures. These reviews provided an overview that was presented to (iii) two experts workshops with 28 participants drawn from academic which identified gaps and produced recommendations. The literature review illustrates the debates in the scientific community on funding, training and infrastructures. The database searches estimated the fraction of health research resources available for mental health. Eight overarching goals for MHR resources were identified by the workshops; each of them was carried out with several practical recommendations. Resources for MHR are scarce considering the burden of mental disorders, the high rate of return of MHR and the under-investment of the field. The recommendations are urgently warranted to increase resources and their optimal access and use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jean-Baptiste Hazo
- ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM, Paris, France; AP-HP, URC-Eco, DHU PePSY, F-75 004 Paris, France; Fondation FondaMental, French Scientific Foundation, Créteil, France; World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, CCOMS, Lille 59260, Hellemmes, France.
| | - Matthias Brunn
- ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM, Paris, France; AP-HP, URC-Eco, DHU PePSY, F-75 004 Paris, France; Fondation FondaMental, French Scientific Foundation, Créteil, France
| | - Til Wykes
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - David McDaid
- PSSRU, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
| | - Maya Dorsey
- ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM, Paris, France; AP-HP, URC-Eco, DHU PePSY, F-75 004 Paris, France; Fondation FondaMental, French Scientific Foundation, Créteil, France
| | | | - Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis
- Department of Health Sciences, MHARG, University of York, York, United Kingdom; Tranzo Department, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | | | - Susanne Knappe
- Institut für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, Behaviorale Epidemiologie & Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Longitudinal Studies, Technische Universität Dresden, Chemnitzer Str. 46, 01187 Dresden, Germany
| | - Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg
- Medical Faculty Mannheim, Central Institute of Mental Health, University of Heidelberg, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
| | | | - Josep Maria Haro
- Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental, CIBERSAM, Madrid, Spain; Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Sant Boi de llobregat, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marion Leboyer
- Fondation FondaMental, French Scientific Foundation, Créteil, France; AP-HP, Department of Psychiatry of Mondor Hospital, DHU PePSY, Paris-Est-Créteil University (UPEC), Créteil, France; INSERM, U955, Translational Psychiatry, Créteil, France
| | - Karine Chevreul
- ECEVE, UMRS 1123, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM, Paris, France; AP-HP, URC-Eco, DHU PePSY, F-75 004 Paris, France
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Petrova M, Barclay S. Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better. BMC Med Ethics 2019; 20:7. [PMID: 30678668 PMCID: PMC6346542 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-018-0339-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2018] [Accepted: 12/25/2018] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service (NHS) procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive research, and suggest directions for radical system change. MAIN TEXT We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates (e.g. only records of the research associate were used). The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation (such as the ethics application, information sheets and consent forms). We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies. CONCLUSION Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mila Petrova
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
| | - Stephen Barclay
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK
| |
Collapse
|