How debunking biases in research and development decisions could lead to more equitable healthcare?

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Cts-Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1111/cts.13880
Benjamin Weber, Issam Zineh, Richard Lalonde, Sandra A. G. Visser
{"title":"How debunking biases in research and development decisions could lead to more equitable healthcare?","authors":"Benjamin Weber,&nbsp;Issam Zineh,&nbsp;Richard Lalonde,&nbsp;Sandra A. G. Visser","doi":"10.1111/cts.13880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Decades of research have demonstrated that a variety of cognitive biases can affect our judgment and ability to make rational decisions in personal and professional environments. The lengthy, risky, and costly nature of pharmaceutical research and development (R&amp;D) makes it vulnerable to biased decision-making. Moreover, cognitive biases can play a role in regulatory and clinical decision-making, the latter impacting diagnostic and treatment decisions in the therapeutic use of medicines. These inherent and/or institutionalized biases (e.g., in assumptions, data, or decision-making practices) could conceivably contribute to health inequities. In this mini-review, we provide a broad perspective on how cognitive biases can affect pharmaceutical R&amp;D, regulatory evaluation, and therapeutic decision-making. Example approaches to mitigate the effect of common biases in the development, approval, and use of new therapeutics, such as quantitative decision criteria, multidisciplinary reviews, regulatory and treatment guidelines, and evidence-based clinical decision support systems are illustrated. Mitigating the impact of cognitive biases could increase pharma R&amp;D efficiency, change the perspective and prioritization of unmet medical needs, increase representativeness and quality of evidence generated through clinical trials and real-world research, leading to higher quality insights and more effective medication use, and as such could eventually contribute to more equitable healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":50610,"journal":{"name":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cts.13880","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.13880","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decades of research have demonstrated that a variety of cognitive biases can affect our judgment and ability to make rational decisions in personal and professional environments. The lengthy, risky, and costly nature of pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) makes it vulnerable to biased decision-making. Moreover, cognitive biases can play a role in regulatory and clinical decision-making, the latter impacting diagnostic and treatment decisions in the therapeutic use of medicines. These inherent and/or institutionalized biases (e.g., in assumptions, data, or decision-making practices) could conceivably contribute to health inequities. In this mini-review, we provide a broad perspective on how cognitive biases can affect pharmaceutical R&D, regulatory evaluation, and therapeutic decision-making. Example approaches to mitigate the effect of common biases in the development, approval, and use of new therapeutics, such as quantitative decision criteria, multidisciplinary reviews, regulatory and treatment guidelines, and evidence-based clinical decision support systems are illustrated. Mitigating the impact of cognitive biases could increase pharma R&D efficiency, change the perspective and prioritization of unmet medical needs, increase representativeness and quality of evidence generated through clinical trials and real-world research, leading to higher quality insights and more effective medication use, and as such could eventually contribute to more equitable healthcare.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
消除研发决策中的偏见如何能带来更公平的医疗保健?
数十年的研究表明,各种认知偏差会影响我们在个人和职业环境中做出理性决策的判断和能力。医药研发(R&D)时间长、风险大、成本高,因此很容易出现决策偏差。此外,认知偏差还可能在监管和临床决策中发挥作用,后者影响着药物治疗使用中的诊断和治疗决策。可以想象,这些固有和/或制度化的偏见(如假设、数据或决策实践中的偏见)可能会导致健康不公平。在这篇微型综述中,我们将从一个广阔的视角探讨认知偏差如何影响药品研发、监管评估和治疗决策。文中举例说明了在新疗法的开发、审批和使用过程中减轻常见偏见影响的方法,如定量决策标准、多学科评审、监管和治疗指南以及循证临床决策支持系统。减轻认知偏差的影响可以提高制药研发效率,改变对未满足医疗需求的看法和优先次序,提高通过临床试验和真实世界研究产生的证据的代表性和质量,从而获得更高质量的见解和更有效的药物使用,并最终促进更公平的医疗保健。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), an official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, highlights original translational medicine research that helps bridge laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. Translational medicine is a multi-faceted discipline with a focus on translational therapeutics. In a broad sense, translational medicine bridges across the discovery, development, regulation, and utilization spectrum. Research may appear as Full Articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, Phase Forwards (clinical trials), Reviews, or Tutorials. CTS also includes invited didactic content that covers the connections between clinical pharmacology and translational medicine. Best-in-class methodologies and best practices are also welcomed as Tutorials. These additional features provide context for research articles and facilitate understanding for a wide array of individuals interested in clinical and translational science. CTS welcomes high quality, scientifically sound, original manuscripts focused on clinical pharmacology and translational science, including animal, in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies supporting the breadth of drug discovery, development, regulation and clinical use of both traditional drugs and innovative modalities.
期刊最新文献
Pharmacokinetic comparison of subcutaneously administered CT-P13 (biosimilar of infliximab) via autoinjector and pre-filled syringe in healthy participants. Pharmacokinetic model-guided enoxaparin dosing in the Neonatal ICU: Retrospective cohort study to plan for prospective feasibility trial. Association between statin use and dry eye disease in patients with hyperlipidemia: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Is there a possibility that P-glycoprotein reduces reproductive toxicity in males but breast cancer resistance protein does not? Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ART-648, a PDE4 inhibitor in healthy subjects: A randomized, placebo-controlled phase I study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1