Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda

Industry influence on mental health research: depression as a case example

Emotional distress has been rising since before the COVID-19 pandemic and the public is told that depression is a major public health problem. For example, in 2017 depressive disorders were ranked as the third leading cause of "years lost to disability" and the World Health Organization now ranks depression as the single largest contributor to global disability. Although critical appraisals of the epidemiological data raise questions about the accuracy of population-based depression estimates, the dominance of the medical model and the marketing of psychotropics as "magic bullets," have contributed to a dramatic rise in the prescription of psychiatric drugs. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry's influence on psychiatric research and practice has resulted in over-estimates of the effectiveness of psychotropic medications and an under-reporting of harms. This is because the principles that govern commercial entities are incongruent with the principles that guide public health research and interventions. In order to conduct mental health research and develop interventions that are in the public's best interest, we need non-reductionist epistemological and empirical approaches that incorporate a biopsychosocial perspective. Taking depression as a case example, we argue that the socio-political factors associated with emotional distress must be identified and addressed. We describe the harms of industry influence on mental health research and show how the emphasis on "scaling up" the diagnosis and treatment of depression is an insufficient response from a public health perspective. Solutions for reform are offered.

Correction: Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249661.].

Rebalancing commercial and public interests in prioritizing biomedical, social and environmental aspects of health through defining and managing conflicts of interest

Biomedical research is intended to benefit human beings and their health. Toward that end, scientific norms involve examining and criticizing the work of others and prioritizing questions that should be studied. Yet, in areas of health research where industry is active, it has often utilized well-honed strategies aimed at evading scientific standards and at dominating the research agenda, largely through its financial support and lack of transparency of its research practices. These tactics have now been documented to uniformly support industry products. Commercial entities are aided in this pursuit by public policy that has significantly embedded commercial interests and agendas into federal research funding and infrastructure. Therefore, to understand the resulting landscape and its effect on priority in health research agendas, traditional definitions of individual conflicts of interest (COI) and the less well developed institutional COI must be supplemented by a new construct of structural COI, largely operating as intellectual monopolies, in support of industry. These arrangements often result in financial and reputational resources that assure dominance of commercial priorities in research agendas, crowding out any other interests and ignoring justified returns to the public from investment of its tax dollars. There is no sustained attention to mechanisms by which public interests can be heard, normative issues raised, and then balanced with commercial interests which are transparently reported. Focus on research supporting approval of commercial products ignores social and environmental determinants of health. Commercial bias can invalidate regulatory research protections through obscuring valid risk-benefit ratios considered by IRBs.

Patients, family members and healthcare professionals' top ten research priorities for adults receiving home parenteral nutrition for malignant or benign disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is the primary treatment for chronic intestinal failure (CIF) due to non-malignant disease and is increasingly used in patients with a diagnosis of cancer. This project engaged with patients, family members and healthcare professionals to ascertain what questions they want researched.

METHODS

This study followed the five-stage process of the James Lind Alliance that involved (1) setting up a steering group, (2) carrying out an initial survey to gather participants' questions, (3) data processing, (4) an interim priority setting survey and (5) final priority setting workshop. Surveys were translated and back translated into Italian, Danish and French.

RESULTS

The project was delivered by an international steering committee with representation from Denmark, Italy, the United Kingdom and United States consisting of three patients, six healthcare professionals and facilitated by University researchers. For the first survey, 633 questions were submitted by 292 respondents from 12 countries. There were 79 questions removed as out of scope or already in the published literature. Responses were collated into two interim surveys of 41 questions for benign CIF and 13 questions for HPN and cancer. In the second survey, 216 respondents prioritised their top ten questions. The ordering from the cancer and HPN survey was taken as definitive; top priorities were quality of life, survival, when to commence HPN, using HPN with anti-cancer treatments, access barriers, measuring benefit and ethical implications. For CIF with benign disease, 18 questions were discussed in two workshops attended by 13 patients and 7 healthcare professionals. The questions were ranked using a modified nominal group technique; the top research priorities were prevention and treatment of liver disease, improving central infusion lines, oral absorption, avoiding long-term negative consequences, vascular access, side effects, line infections, decreasing stoma output, quality of life and sleep.

CONCLUSIONS

Priorities identified will assist researchers to focus on research questions important to patients, family members and healthcare professionals.

The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies

Background

The private versus public contribution to developing new health knowledge and interventions is deeply contentious. Proponents of commercial innovation highlight its role in late-stage clinical trials, regulatory approval, and widespread distribution. Proponents of public innovation point out the role of public institutions in forming the foundational knowledge undergirding downstream innovation. The rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation has brought with it uniquely proactive public involvement to characterize, treat, and prevent this novel health treat. How has this affected the share of research by industry and public institutions, particularly compared to the experience of previous pandemics, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika?

Methods

Using Embase, we categorized all publications for COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika as having any author identified as affiliated with industry or not. We placed all disease areas on a common timeline of the number of days since the WHO had declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern with a six-month lookback window. We plotted the number and proportion of publications over time using a smoothing function and plotted a rolling 30-day cumulative sum to illustrate the variability in publication outputs over time.

Results

Industry-affiliated articles represented 2% (1,773 articles) of publications over the 14 months observed for COVID-19, 7% (278 articles) over 7.1 years observed for Ebola, 5% (350 articles) over 12.4 years observed for H1N1, and 3% (160 articles) over the 5.7 years observed for Zika. The proportion of industry-affiliated publications built steadily over the time observed, eventually plateauing around 7.5% for Ebola, 5.5% for H1H1, and 3.5% for Zika. In contrast, COVID-19’s proportion oscillated from 1.4% to above 2.7% and then declined again to 1.7%. At this point in the pandemic (i.e., 14 months since the PHEIC), the proportion of industry-affiliated articles had been higher for the other three disease areas; for example, the proportion for H1N1 was twice as high.

Conclusions

While the industry-affiliated contribution to the biomedical literature for COVID is extraordinary in its absolute number, its proportional share is unprecedentedly low currently. Nevertheless, the world has witnessed one of the most remarkable mobilizations of the biomedical innovation ecosystem in history.