Abstract
BackgroundThe relevance and quantity of clinical research has caused concern and regulation is claimed to hinder clinical research. This paper compares clinical research regulations in Finland to those of England, Canada, and the USA around 2010–2011.MethodsSeveral approaches and data sources were used, including semi- or unstructured interviews of experts. For the analysis, a theoretical framework was made, data from various sources was synthesized, and features of the systems were simplified and classified. The various specific names and terms used in the data were changed into general ones.ResultsCommon structures for the regulation existed in all four countries, but the details and scope varied. The research regulated within the main system was determined by research type (Finland), the financer of the health system (England), or research site (Canada, USA). Only Finland had specific legislation on medical research. The overriding impression of the regulatory systems was one of complexity. All countries had extra regulation for drug research. The types of drug research covered varied from trials with unlicensed (new) products or new indications (USA and Canada), to all types of interventional drug research (England), where ‘interventional’ was interpreted broadly (Finland). The complexity of regulations had led to the creation of various big and small businesses to help researchers and sponsors. There was notable variation in the role played by the public research funder. The role played by health care was difficult to study and seemed to involve varying interests as researchers were also health care employees. Research ethics committees were important and their tasks also included aspects other than ethics.ConclusionsThis study revealed that a comparison between countries can provide useful insights into the distinctive aspects of each country’s system, as well as identifying common features that require international action.
Highlights
The relevance and quantity of clinical research has caused concern and regulation is claimed to hinder clinical research
The aim of this paper is to compare clinical research regulation in Finland to that of three other countries, in order to illustrate common features and variations around the period 2010–2011, while focusing on the various actors involved in research regulation
Context Finland is a Nordic state in the European Union (EU), with a population of around 5 million (Table 1)
Summary
The relevance and quantity of clinical research has caused concern and regulation is claimed to hinder clinical research. This paper compares clinical research regulations in Finland to those of England, Canada, and the USA around 2010–2011. Concern has been raised about the relevance and quantity of clinical research and it is even claimed that regulation hinders research activity [1,2,3,4]. The aim of this paper is to compare clinical research regulation in Finland to that of three other countries, in order to illustrate common features and variations around the period 2010–2011, while focusing on the various actors involved in research regulation. England, changes have occurred since 2011, but in order to preserve a common timeframe these changes are referred to only briefly.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
