Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Paediatric practice needs better evidence
gained in
collaboration with parents and
children
All those concerned with the clinical care of
children have a responsibility to improve that care, and one way of
achieving this is by research. The importance of research into normal
childhood development and into the methods of promoting good health,
together with studies of the aetiology, natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of childhood diseases is well recognised. So too are the
perils of relying on information from studies conducted in adults and
generalising these to children. However, undertaking clinical research
in children presents unique challenges.1
The most obvious of these are the ethical ones: the need to protect
children from harm while respecting their autonomy and to obtain
properly informed consent from parents, and, when possible, the
children themselves. There are also methodological challenges. Outcome
measures, developed and validated in adults, are unlikely to be
appropriate or feasible for children and babies. The proportions of
children affected by chronic diseases are smaller and the diseases often more heterogeneous than in adults, and diagnostic criteria may be
less precise.1
These formidable practical and ethical difficulties may have
contributed to a dearth of high quality paediatric research. A group of
community paediatricians investigated the research evidence that
existed to support their clinical decisions and found that only 40% of
decisions were supported by good quality clinical
studies.2 A recent review of randomised controlled trials
published in one paediatric journal over 15 years identified only 249, of which 43% were funded by pharmaceutical companies.3 The numbers of children recruited to these trials were generally small
(about half recruited less than 40), indicating that they were unlikely
to detect small or moderate differences in treatment effects. Many of
the trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry will have been
conducted for drug regulatory purposes, and in this area the gaps in
research have been comprehensively demonstrated. A study of five
centres across Europe showed that almost half of all drug prescriptions
for children were either for off label indications or used unlicensed
drugs.4 In an era in which clinicians are being exhorted
to practise evidence based care, paediatricians are faced with a lack
of evidence, which is at best confusing and at worst dangerous.
The low priority given to children's health at a policy level has been
contrasted with the importance that the public attaches to
it.5 In Britain public concern about issues related to
children's health has led to the inquiries into events in Bristol,
North Staffordshire, and Alder Hey. Among the issues highlighted has been the need for research to be conducted with greater transparency and to the highest ethical and scientific standards, with fully informed consent. No one would argue with these principles, but the
very public scrutiny that children's research has undergone and the
prevailing double standards on informed consent to treatment within and
outside therapeutic research6 are likely to deter research
rather than encourage it. As one paediatrician has noted, "I need
permission to give a drug to half of my patients, but not to give it to
them all."7 It would hardly be surprising if researchers
and funding bodies were to consider research with children too fraught
with problems and hence diverted their energies and resources into
other areas. This would add to the already depressed state of
paediatric clinical research.8
So how can we move forward in the interests of children? It is
important to note that, rather than opposing research with children,
the public has recognised that the information available from
paediatric research is limited and needs to be strengthened. There is
now a strong emphasis on the need for consumer involvement in clinical
research, with research organisations throughout the world working with
patient groups to help set their research agendas.9 Within
the UK, guidance on consumer involvement in research in the NHS
supports several models, including consultation, collaboration, and
consumer controlled research.10 The guidance relates
mainly to health services research and does not specifically mention involvement of consumers in children's research. As consumers, children are usually represented by their parents, but children may be
able to express their own opinions, if these are sought, using
appropriate methods to elicit them.11 Collaboration with parents and, when possible, children in the design, approval, and
conduct of all types of clinical research will help ensure that it is
relevant and conducted to the rigorous standards that the public expects.
Nevertheless, there are real anxieties that research with children will
become increasingly difficult to perform.12 Too often,
clinical decisions about the care of children have been based on
research conducted in adults, or on no research at all. Acquiescence in
this unsatisfactory situation is untenable. We need to develop and
strengthen research with children by enlisting the active collaboration
of parents and children themselves. It will only be by partnership with
the individuals whom we wish to benefit from this process that research
with children can achieve its aims.
University of Liverpool Institute of Child Health, Alder Hey
Children's Hospital, Liverpool L12 2AP (r.l.smyth{at}liv.ac.uk)
| 1. | Smyth RL, Weindling AM. Research in children: ethical and scientific aspects. Lancet 1999; 354 (suppl 2): SII21-4. |
| 2. |
Rudolf M, Lyth N, Bundle A, Rowland G, Kelly A, Bosson S, et al.
A search for the evidence supporting community paediatric practice.
Arch Dis Child
1999;
80:
257-261 |
| 3. |
Campbell H, Surry S, Royle E.
A review of randomised controlled trials published in Archives of Disease in Childhood from 1982-1996.
Arch Dis Child
1997;
79:
192-197 |
| 4. |
Conroy S, Choonara I, Impicciatore P, Mohn A, Arnell H, Rome A, et al.
Survey of unlicensed and off label drug use in paediatric wards in European countries.
BMJ
2000;
320:
79-82 |
| 5. |
Aynsley-Green A, Barker M, Burr S, Macfarlane A, Morgan J, Sibert J, et al.
Who is speaking for children and adolescents and for their health at the policy level?
BMJ
2000;
321:
229-232 |
| 6. | Chalmers I, Lindley R. Double standards on informed consent to treatment. In: Doyal L, Tobias J, eds. Informed consent in medical research. London: BMJ Books, 2000:266-275. |
| 7. | Smithells R. Iatrogenic hazards and their effects. Postgrad Med J 1975; 15: 39-52. |
| 8. |
UK paediatric clinical research under threat.
Arch Dis Child
1997;
76:
1-3 |
| 9. |
Liberati A.
Consumer participation in research and health care.
BMJ
1997;
315:
499 |
| 10. | Consumers in NHS Research Support Unit. Involving consumers in research and development in the NHS. Winchester: Consumers in NHS Research Support Unit, 2000. |
| 11. |
Hart C, Chesson R.
Children as consumers.
BMJ
1998;
316:
1600-1603 |
| 12. |
Stephenson T.
Investigating allegations of research misconduct.
BMJ
2000;
321:
1345 |
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.