What strategy should France implement for H2020?

The initiation of Horizon 2020--the European Union's 8th Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, allotted a budget of 79 billion euros--provides an opportunity to review France's participation in previous Framework Programmes. Indeed, French participation does not match either its scientific importance or its financial investment. While France contributed 16.5 to 17% of the EU's 7th Framework Programme research budget, its return through the funding of coordinated projects in which French teams are participating stands at around 12.5 to 13%, a shortfall of 600 million euros. Although the situation depends on the type of activity, French participation in clinical research appears to be smaller than that of its neighbours, with fewer responses to European calls for proposals. While France has many assets, which include the assured funding of clinical research, structured thematic networks and the initiation of major national programmes, it suffers from the dilution of resources due to France's regional development policy, the lack of multidisciplinarity and the ignorance of both the medical and scientific community and the institutions to which they belong as to how Horizon 2020 actually works. We propose three types of strategy to encourage proposals for coordinated clinical research projects or projects involving French teams, and to help in the drawing up of applications: Broaden the vision of our children, students and colleagues, helping them to adapt to the globalisation of knowledge throughout their educational and professional lives. Recognise the value of European actions to influence the European landscape and change mentalities. Help and support project initiators by pooling skills within a limited number of expert centres designed to assist them in their funding application. • Broaden the vision of our children, students and colleagues, helping them to adapt to the globalisation of knowledge throughout their educational and professional lives. • Recognise the value of European actions to influence the European landscape and change mentalities. • Help and support project initiators by pooling skills within a limited number of expert centres designed to assist them in their funding application.

Promoting the place of the allied health professions in clinical research.

Clinical research is of major importance to today's society, as scientific evidence is increasingly demanded as a basis for progress, whether this involves developing new healthcare products, improving clinical practice and care protocols or progress in prevention. Clinical research therefore requires professionals who are both experienced and increasingly well trained. Against this background, allied health professionals are becoming involved more and more, both as team members supporting clinical research projects and as managers or coordinators of projects in their own field. Clinical research activities provide an ideal opportunity for continuing professional development. All of this means that the professional skills of the allied health professions and clinical research support professions must be enhanced, their role promoted in the context of lecturer status and in the longer term, their status recognised by the supervisory authorities.

How can the quality of medical data in pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and clinical studies be guaranteed?

The development of medicinal products is subject to quality standards aimed at guaranteeing that database contents accurately reflect the source documents. Paradoxically, these standards hardly address the quality of the source data itself. The objective of this work was to propose recommendations to improve data quality in three fields (pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and clinical studies). The analysis was focused on the data and on the critical stages presenting critical quality problems, for which the current guidelines are insufficiently detailed, unsuitable and/or poorly applied. Finally, recommendations have been proposed, mainly focused on the origin of the data and its transcription.

[Research on usual care: Assessing the qualification criteria of the current legal framework]. / Recherche portant sur les soins courants : évaluation des critères de qualification proposés par le dispositif législatif et réglementaire en vigueur.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the current legal framework pertaining to research on usual care and to check the adequacy of its use in relation to this research. METHOD: Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed to evaluate the research on usual care protocols managed by the Department of Clinical Research and Development (DRCD), Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), since Law no. 2004-806 of 9 August 2004 relative to public health policy, came into force in 2006. RESULTS: Fifty-five research projects were analysed. Some projects had diverging qualifications or had been re-qualified (12 projects). DISCUSSION: Misunderstandings of the law by the actors involved in research as well as an overly narrow definition of research on usual care within the law were the main causes of these divergences.