Advantages and limitations of online communities of patients for research on health products.

The way patients and their caregivers share information on various online platforms about health topics and their own experiential knowledge presents new potential environments for research, particularly as concerns health products. The information provided individually and voluntarily by patients who are members of these online communities is a new resource for identifying and understanding precisely how health products are used, assessing their effectiveness, quantifying potential adverse effects in real-life situations, detecting subtle signs that are significant for experts in pharmacovigilance and addiction studies, and developing new assessment tools to help form new working hypotheses. How patients freely express their experiences and feelings and the reality of what they share also opens the way for societal research into health products, a field that is still under-explored. Well-established regulations govern research into health products, which uses resources and methodologies that have changed little over the years. However, the development of online communities of patients presents new possibilities in this field. The challenge we face today is defining their place among traditional research techniques. This place cannot be accepted by all stakeholders unless we first establish a firm understanding of the advantages, limitations, and constraints of these communities. The round table on this topic endeavoured to: explore these issues and develop a better understanding of the phenomenon and the different varieties of online communities and networks for patients; identify possible advantages, special features, and methodological, regulatory, and ethical limitations that researchers currently face; and finally, to put forward the first recommendations in this growing field of research.

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.

Non-interventional research and usual care: definition, regulatory aspects, difficulties and recommendations.

Non-interventional research is an essential approach to gathering data in different situations and it often complements other research methodologies, such as biomedical research and research aimed at evaluating usual care. Yet the legislative framework for this type of research is nonexistent, and this void poses a number of problems for non-interventional researchers, including an absence of any guarantee of quality and therefore of reliability, a limited recognition of the research beyond our borders, cumbersome administrative procedures, and a lack of visibility. In light of the growing demand for data, particularly in post marketing authorisation for drugs, which largely relies on non-interventional methods, the Round Table participants have issued a set of proposals for a future legislative framework for this type of research.