A research network could improve outcomes through advocacy, identifying research gaps and providing shared infrastructure
Research benefits from both competition and collaboration. Inefficiencies occur when researchers are engaged in similar research, often not realising that other groups in Australia are working in the same area. For example, it is possible that there are competing clinical trials in uncommon cancers, which will decrease the chance of any individual study recruiting adequate numbers of patients to answer the questions it poses. In May 2012, the Medical Journal of Australia hosted the MJA Clinical Trials Research Summit. This article was written on behalf of contributors to a working group discussion on networking held during that summit.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Reiter KL, Song PH, Mansian L, et al. A method for analysing the business case for provider participation in the National Cancer Institute’s Community Clinical Oncology Program and similar federally funded provider-based research networks. Cancer 2011; 118: 4253-4261.
- 2. McNeil J, Nelson MR, Tonkin AM. Public funding of large scale clinical trials in Australia. Med J Aust 2003; 179: 519-520. <MJA full text>
- 3. Peppercorn JM, Weeks JC, Cook EF, Joffe F. Comparison of outcomes in cancer patients treated within and outside clinical trials: conceptual framework and structured review. Lancet 2004; 363: 263-270.
- 4. Majumdar SR, Roe MT, Peterson ED, et al. Better outcomes for patients treated at hospitals that participate in clinical trials. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168: 657-662.
We thank those who attended and contributed to the MJA Clinical Trials Research Summit.
No relevant disclosures.