Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Editorial

Realizing the vision of patient-relevant clinical research

Kirsten Patrick
CMAJ October 18, 2016 188 (15) 1063; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.161084
Kirsten Patrick
Deputy Editor,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Re:Is patient involvement an essential component of good clinical research?
    Kirsten L. Patrick
    Posted on: 22 December 2016
  • Patient engagement in research and policy
    M. Ruth Lavergne
    Posted on: 24 November 2016
  • A step forward: towards relevant outcomes
    Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, CCFP, FRCPC, FACPM
    Posted on: 18 November 2016
  • Is patient involvement an essential component of good clinical research?
    Maurice McGregor
    Posted on: 15 November 2016
  • Posted on: (22 December 2016)
    Re:Is patient involvement an essential component of good clinical research?
    • Kirsten L. Patrick, Deputy Editor

    Prof. McGregor urges me to resist displaying hubris - which is "excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance." Perhaps Prof. McGregor misunderstands my motive in writing this editorial. In truth, using the platform I am so privileged to have, I am advocating for our profession to move away from the hubristic notions that physicians - and medical researchers - know best what patients value, without bothering to ask them....

    Show More

    Prof. McGregor urges me to resist displaying hubris - which is "excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance." Perhaps Prof. McGregor misunderstands my motive in writing this editorial. In truth, using the platform I am so privileged to have, I am advocating for our profession to move away from the hubristic notions that physicians - and medical researchers - know best what patients value, without bothering to ask them. It is my hope that CMAJ can play its part in supporting evolving best practice in medical research.

    Conflict of Interest:

    I am the author of the article to which this response is attached.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (24 November 2016)
    Patient engagement in research and policy
    • M. Ruth Lavergne, Assistant Professor

    I applaud the editors of CMAJ for supporting enhanced patient engagement in research. I wish to clarify one small point. This editorial cites our article for the quotation "easier, healthier patients." These are not our words. This is a direct quotation from a paper entitled "General Practice Services Committee: Improving Primary Care for BC Physicians and Patients," which is cited in our paper and below [1]. The full p...

    Show More

    I applaud the editors of CMAJ for supporting enhanced patient engagement in research. I wish to clarify one small point. This editorial cites our article for the quotation "easier, healthier patients." These are not our words. This is a direct quotation from a paper entitled "General Practice Services Committee: Improving Primary Care for BC Physicians and Patients," which is cited in our paper and below [1]. The full paragraph is as follows:

    "These incentive payments allow GPs on a fee-for-service model to justify spending more time with their chronic and complex care patients, and facilitate the provision of guidelines-informed care. Patients with more complex illnesses are therefore no longer dropped in favour of easier, healthier patients."

    The incentive payments were planned by representatives of Doctors of BC and the Ministry of Health. As is observed in the editorial, and as is illustrated in the above quotation, the focus was largely on payments and providers. We attempted to evaluate these policies retrospectively, using routinely collected data, and we freely acknowledge the limitations of the measures used.

    I fully agree with the need for enhanced patient engagement in research, and also hope for greater patient involvement in shaping primary care policies. This would support identification and monitoring of patient -relevant outcomes from the start.

    Reference

    1. Tregillus VHF, Cavers WJ. General Practice Services Committee: Improving primary care for BC physicians and patients. Healthcare Quarterly 2011;14:1-6.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (18 November 2016)
    A step forward: towards relevant outcomes
    • Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, CCFP, FRCPC, FACPM, Associate Medical Officer of Health

    Dr. Patrick's call for greater patient-involvement in research and a focus on patient-focused outcomes is timely and critical, and I applaud CMAJ for taking this important position.

    As a public health physician, the involvement of key stakeholders in planning, research, and evaluation of policies and programs has long been well understood - even if it faces deployment challenges in practice. Community-based pa...

    Show More

    Dr. Patrick's call for greater patient-involvement in research and a focus on patient-focused outcomes is timely and critical, and I applaud CMAJ for taking this important position.

    As a public health physician, the involvement of key stakeholders in planning, research, and evaluation of policies and programs has long been well understood - even if it faces deployment challenges in practice. Community-based participatory research represents one such model. (1) Ultimately, it is members of our communities that will bear the benefits and burdens of public policy. Thus, understanding potential effects as part of planning and monitoring for outcomes, both intended and unintended, is critical to ensuring that, put simply, we got it right - and if not, what needs to change.

    Similarly, the private sector has had similar philosophies in seeking consumer testing and input. Even something as simple as apples is subject to testing. (2) Their business models are highly dependent on not just coming up with a product that looks good in practice, but one that is sought after, with tangible impacts, that a consumer might consider purchasing. Many companies would argue that to ignore the consumer in the development of their value proposition is foolhardy.

    To that end, the parallel concept is that patient involvement is essential in planning and conducting healthcare research - be it around assessing treatments, experiences, or systems change - to ensure outcomes are relevant to those who matter - the patients who are accessing care.

    Critics will argue that any other number of measures can act as a proxy for improved outcomes, such as cost-savings or decreased wait times. What such measures lack is an understanding of the direct impacts on population and individual level health outcomes. To truly understand what health outcomes impact quality and quantity of life, you have to ask the people who are living with the outcomes of the intervention in question.

    Critics will also argue that it's difficult to identify who represents the voice of the patient. That is, however, a specious argument: just because something is difficult, or cannot be perfectly done, does not mean it shouldn't at least be attempted. Again, to take a page from private sector - if a company isn't hearing from the right voices, they'll figure it out quickly when things start to go awry.

    Canadian academics and practitioners conduct voluminous amounts of research, and every day there are new programs, policies, and interventions that are also ripe for investigation. As the public health and private sector have learned, and given the higher stakes, the medical community has a responsibility to ensure that any planning and evaluation is informed by the people that live with the outcomes.

    1. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Public Health. 2010 Apr 1;100 Suppl 1:S40-6. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036. Epub 2010 Feb 10.

    2..Peneau S, Hoehn E, Roth HR, Escher F, Nuessli J. Importance and consumer perception of freshness of apples. Food Quality and Preference Jan-Mar 2006 17(1):9-19 doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.05.002

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (15 November 2016)
    Is patient involvement an essential component of good clinical research?
    • Maurice McGregor, Prof Emeritus of Medicine

    In a recent editorial (Realizing the vision of patient-relevant clinical research), Kirsten Patrick propounds the view that patient involvement should be an essential component of clinical research. "Patients and their caregivers" she states, "must be involved in decision- making at all steps in the research process, from design to choice of primary and secondary outcomes,.....". As an example of failure to do this she c...

    Show More

    In a recent editorial (Realizing the vision of patient-relevant clinical research), Kirsten Patrick propounds the view that patient involvement should be an essential component of clinical research. "Patients and their caregivers" she states, "must be involved in decision- making at all steps in the research process, from design to choice of primary and secondary outcomes,.....". As an example of failure to do this she cites a study by Lavergne and colleagues which found that incentive payments to primary care physicians for providing care to patients with multiple chronic conditions did not have a significant impact on patients' primary care contacts, continuity of care or management costs. She criticizes the authors of this paper for the fact that "there is a striking absence of any reference to patients ..." , and for the fact that "the outcomes were almost certainly not patient-relevant ". Surely that is a bit much. Why would this study which was based on administrative data need to refer to patients? In what way would it be improved by doing so? And if the potential saving of millions of dollars to the healthcare system is not "patient-relevant" what is? These pronouncements would not merit comment if they did not come from the Deputy Editor of the Journal who concludes her editorial with the warning that, "As we appraise research that is submitted to the Journal, we will consider carefully methods used to involve public and patient representatives in design and implementation". In other words, if you want to get published in the CMAJ, make sure you list the names of representatives of the public and of patients amongst your authors or at least in your Methods section. (You will have to make up your own mind what a representative of the public is. Must they be elected? What distinguishes you, a regular author, from a representative of the public?). I suggest it is time to urge those who hold the incredible power to accept or reject our research submissions to resist the associated hubris, to leave the authors to decide how the research should be carried out, and to judge the study solely on its quality.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (15)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 15
18 Oct 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Realizing the vision of patient-relevant clinical research
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Realizing the vision of patient-relevant clinical research
Kirsten Patrick
CMAJ Oct 2016, 188 (15) 1063; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.161084

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Realizing the vision of patient-relevant clinical research
Kirsten Patrick
CMAJ Oct 2016, 188 (15) 1063; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.161084
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • A population-based analysis of incentive payments to primary care physicians for the care of patients with complex disease
  • Toward evidence-based policy
  • Against patient involvement in clinical research
  • For patient involvement in clinical research
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • A home for patient-oriented research
  • For patient involvement in clinical research
  • Against patient involvement in clinical research
  • Response to "Against patient involvement in clinical research"
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Trouver, tester, « tracer » et isoler énergiquement pour battre la COVID-19
  • Intégration des essais randomisés dans les soins cliniques : comment le Canada peut faire mieux
  • Soins continus et COVID-19 : Qu’une telle tragédie ne se reproduise plus au Canada!
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Areas of Focus
    • Health services
  • Topics
    • Patient-oriented research
    • Multimorbidity
    • Health economics
    • Family medicine, general practice, primary care
    • Health policy

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire