29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Involving Patients in Research? Responsible Research and Innovation in Small- and Medium-Sized European Health Care Enterprises

      meeting-report
      Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
      Cambridge University Press
      RRI, health care, reasoning, responsible research

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract:

          Health research is generally undertaken to resolve existing health problems or enhance existing solutions. Research ethics committees have been the main governance tool for research for more than half a century. Their role is to ensure that research is undertaken ethically. To close the increasing gap between science and society, other governance tools are required. The European Commission recommends and actively promotes the policy of responsible research and innovation (RRI). In addition to sound research ethics, a key feature of RRI is the involvement of different societal stakeholders throughout the research process.

          But how accepted is the involvement of societal stakeholders in the research of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the health care sector? This question is examined based on 18 in-depth interviews with private health care industry representatives from across Europe in companies focusing on developing medical device technology. Findings suggest that SMEs are reluctant to undertake research involving patients, especially in the early stages of the research and innovation process. For some SMEs this is due to concerns about the dangers of raising expectations they cannot meet, while for others the main concerns are increasing costs and producing less competitive products. Implications of the research findings are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research.

          The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws.

            The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering our profession--and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce their best work. This is a recipe for long-term decline, and the problems cannot be solved with simplistic approaches. Instead, it is time to confront the dangers at hand and rethink some fundamental features of the US biomedical research ecosystem.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: An empirical study of mobile banking services

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Camb Q Healthc Ethics
                Camb Q Healthc Ethics
                CQH
                Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
                Cambridge University Press (New York, USA )
                0963-1801
                1469-2147
                January 2019
                : 28
                : 1
                : 144-152
                Author notes

                Thanks to Julie Cook and Doris Schroeder for editorial input. Thanks to Malcolm Fisk and Alexander Auer for their help in data collection.

                Article
                S0963180118000488 00048
                10.1017/S0963180118000488
                6316350
                f1f90789-4752-43ec-8a3a-72f6e153f417
                © Cambridge University Press 2018

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 9
                Categories
                Symposium on Ethics Dumping

                rri,health care,reasoning,responsible research
                rri, health care, reasoning, responsible research

                Comments

                Comment on this article