scholarly articles on clinical research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.15(2); 2023 Feb
• PMC10023071

Clinical Trials and Clinical Research: A Comprehensive Review

Venkataramana kandi.

1 Clinical Microbiology, Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, IND

Sabitha Vadakedath

2 Biochemistry, Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, IND

Clinical research is an alternative terminology used to describe medical research. Clinical research involves people, and it is generally carried out to evaluate the efficacy of a therapeutic drug, a medical/surgical procedure, or a device as a part of treatment and patient management. Moreover, any research that evaluates the aspects of a disease like the symptoms, risk factors, and pathophysiology, among others may be termed clinical research. However, clinical trials are those studies that assess the potential of a therapeutic drug/device in the management, control, and prevention of disease. In view of the increasing incidences of both communicable and non-communicable diseases, and especially after the effects that Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) had on public health worldwide, the emphasis on clinical research assumes extremely essential. The knowledge of clinical research will facilitate the discovery of drugs, devices, and vaccines, thereby improving preparedness during public health emergencies. Therefore, in this review, we comprehensively describe the critical elements of clinical research that include clinical trial phases, types, and designs of clinical trials, operations of trial, audit, and management, and ethical concerns.

Introduction and background

A clinical trial is a systematic process that is intended to find out the safety and efficacy of a drug/device in treating/preventing/diagnosing a disease or a medical condition [ 1 , 2 ]. Clinical trial includes various phases that include phase 0 (micro-dosing studies), phase 1, phase 2, phase 3, and phase 4 [ 3 ]. Phase 0 and phase 2 are called exploratory trial phases, phase 1 is termed the non-therapeutic phase, phase 3 is known as the therapeutic confirmatory phase, and phase 4 is called the post-approval or the post-marketing surveillance phase. Phase 0, also called the micro-dosing phase, was previously done in animals but now it is carried out in human volunteers to understand the dose tolerability (pharmacokinetics) before being administered as a part of the phase 1 trial among healthy individuals. The details of the clinical trial phases are shown in Table ​ Table1 1 .

This table has been created by the authors.

MTD: maximum tolerated dose; SAD: single ascending dose; MAD: multiple ascending doses; NDA: new drug application; FDA: food and drug administration

Clinical research design has two major types that include non-interventional/observational and interventional/experimental studies. The non-interventional studies may have a comparator group (analytical studies like case-control and cohort studies), or without it (descriptive study). The experimental studies may be either randomized or non-randomized. Clinical trial designs are of several types that include parallel design, crossover design, factorial design, randomized withdrawal approach, adaptive design, superiority design, and non-inferiority design. The advantages and disadvantages of clinical trial designs are depicted in Table ​ Table2 2 .

There are different types of clinical trials that include those which are conducted for treatment, prevention, early detection/screening, and diagnosis. These studies address the activities of an investigational drug on a disease and its outcomes [ 4 ]. They assess whether the drug is able to prevent the disease/condition, the ability of a device to detect/screen the disease, and the efficacy of a medical test to diagnose the disease/condition. The pictorial representation of a disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention is depicted in Figure ​ Figure1 1 .

This figure has been created by the authors.

The clinical trial designs could be improvised to make sure that the study's validity is maintained/retained. The adaptive designs facilitate researchers to improvise during the clinical trial without interfering with the integrity and validity of the results. Moreover, it allows flexibility during the conduction of trials and the collection of data. Despite these advantages, adaptive designs have not been universally accepted among clinical researchers. This could be attributed to the low familiarity of such designs in the research community. The adaptive designs have been applied during various phases of clinical trials and for different clinical conditions [ 5 , 6 ]. The adaptive designs applied during different phases are depicted in Figure ​ Figure2 2 .

The Bayesian adaptive trial design has gained popularity, especially during the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Such designs could operate under a single master protocol. It operates as a platform trial wherein multiple treatments can be tested on different patient groups suffering from disease [ 7 ].

In this review, we comprehensively discuss the essential elements of clinical research that include the principles of clinical research, planning clinical trials, practical aspects of clinical trial operations, essentials of clinical trial applications, monitoring, and audit, clinical trial data analysis, regulatory audits, and project management, clinical trial operations at the investigation site, the essentials of clinical trial experiments involving epidemiological, and genetic studies, and ethical considerations in clinical research/trials.

A clinical trial involves the study of the effect of an investigational drug/any other intervention in a defined population/participant. The clinical research includes a treatment group and a placebo wherein each group is evaluated for the efficacy of the intervention (improved/not improved) [ 8 ].

Clinical trials are broadly classified into controlled and uncontrolled trials. The uncontrolled trials are potentially biased, and the results of such research are not considered as equally as the controlled studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the most effective clinical trials wherein the bias is minimized, and the results are considered reliable. There are different types of randomizations and each one has clearly defined functions as elaborated in Table ​ Table3 3 .

Principles of clinical trial/research

Clinical trials or clinical research are conducted to improve the understanding of the unknown, test a hypothesis, and perform public health-related research [ 2 , 3 ]. This is majorly carried out by collecting the data and analyzing it to derive conclusions. There are various types of clinical trials that are majorly grouped as analytical, observational, and experimental research. Clinical research can also be classified into non-directed data capture, directed data capture, and drug trials. Clinical research could be prospective or retrospective. It may also be a case-control study or a cohort study. Clinical trials may be initiated to find treatment, prevent, observe, and diagnose a disease or a medical condition.

Among the various types of clinical research, observational research using a cross-sectional study design is the most frequently performed clinical research. This type of research is undertaken to analyze the presence or absence of a disease/condition, potential risk factors, and prevalence and incidence rates in a defined population. Clinical trials may be therapeutic or non-therapeutic type depending on the type of intervention. The therapeutic type of clinical trial uses a drug that may be beneficial to the patient. Whereas in a non-therapeutic clinical trial, the participant does not benefit from the drug. The non-therapeutic trials provide additional knowledge of the drug for future improvements. Different terminologies of clinical trials are delineated in Table ​ Table4 4 .

In view of the increased cost of the drug discovery process, developing, and low-income countries depend on the production of generic drugs. The generic drugs are similar in composition to the patented/branded drug. Once the patent period is expired generic drugs can be manufactured which have a similar quality, strength, and safety as the patented drug [ 9 ]. The regulatory requirements and the drug production process are almost the same for the branded and the generic drug according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States of America (USA).

The bioequivalence (BE) studies review the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) of the generic drug. These studies compare the concentration of the drug at the desired location in the human body, called the peak concentration of the drug (Cmax). The extent of absorption of the drug is measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), wherein the generic drug is supposed to demonstrate similar ADME activities as the branded drug. The BE studies may be undertaken in vitro (fasting, non-fasting, sprinkled fasting) or in vivo studies (clinical, bioanalytical, and statistical) [ 9 ].

Planning clinical trial/research

The clinical trial process involves protocol development, designing a case record/report form (CRF), and functioning of institutional review boards (IRBs). It also includes data management and the monitoring of clinical trial site activities. The CRF is the most significant document in a clinical study. It contains the information collected by the investigator about each subject participating in a clinical study/trial. According to the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), the CRF can be printed, optical, or an electronic document that is used to record the safety and efficacy of the pharmaceutical drug/product in the test subjects. This information is intended for the sponsor who initiates the clinical study [ 10 ].

The CRF is designed as per the protocol and later it is thoroughly reviewed for its correctness (appropriate and structured questions) and finalized. The CRF then proceeds toward the print taking the language of the participating subjects into consideration. Once the CRF is printed, it is distributed to the investigation sites where it is filled with the details of the participating subjects by the investigator/nurse/subject/guardian of the subject/technician/consultant/monitors/pharmacist/pharmacokinetics/contract house staff. The filled CRFs are checked for their completeness and transported to the sponsor [ 11 ].

Effective planning and implementation of a clinical study/trial will influence its success. The clinical study majorly includes the collection and distribution of the trial data, which is done by the clinical data management section. The project manager is crucial to effectively plan, organize, and use the best processes to control and monitor the clinical study [ 10 , 11 ].

The clinical study is conducted by a sponsor or a clinical research organization (CRO). A perfect protocol, time limits, and regulatory requirements assume significance while planning a clinical trial. What, when, how, and who are clearly planned before the initiation of a study trial. Regular review of the project using the bar and Gantt charts, and maintaining the timelines assume increased significance for success with the product (study report, statistical report, database) [ 10 , 11 ].

The steps critical to planning a clinical trial include the idea, review of the available literature, identifying a problem, formulating the hypothesis, writing a synopsis, identifying the investigators, writing a protocol, finding a source of funding, designing a patient consent form, forming ethics boards, identifying an organization, preparing manuals for procedures, quality assurance, investigator training and initiation of the trial by recruiting the participants [ 10 ].

The two most important points to consider before the initiation of the clinical trial include whether there is a need for a clinical trial, if there is a need, then one must make sure that the study design and methodology are strong for the results to be reliable to the people [ 11 ].

For clinical research to envisage high-quality results, the study design, implementation of the study, quality assurance in data collection, and alleviation of bias and confounding factors must be robust [ 12 ]. Another important aspect of conducting a clinical trial is improved management of various elements of clinical research that include human and financial resources. The role of a trial manager to make a successful clinical trial was previously reported. The trial manager could play a key role in planning, coordinating, and successfully executing the trial. Some qualities of a trial manager include better communication and motivation, leadership, and strategic, tactical, and operational skills [ 13 ].

Practical aspects of a clinical trial operations

There are different types of clinical research. Research in the development of a novel drug could be initiated by nationally funded research, industry-sponsored research, and clinical research initiated by individuals/investigators. According to the documents 21 code of federal regulations (CFR) 312.3 and ICH E-6 Good Clinical Practice (GCP) 1.54, an investigator is an individual who initiates and conducts clinical research [ 14 ]. The investigator plan, design, conduct, monitor, manage data, compile reports, and supervise research-related regulatory and ethical issues. To manage a successful clinical trial project, it is essential for an investigator to give the letter of intent, write a proposal, set a timeline, develop a protocol and related documents like the case record forms, define the budget, and identify the funding sources.

Other major steps of clinical research include the approval of IRBs, conduction and supervision of the research, data review, and analysis. Successful clinical research includes various essential elements like a letter of intent which is the evidence that supports the interest of the researcher to conduct drug research, timeline, funding source, supplier, and participant characters.

Quality assurance, according to the ICH and GCP guidelines, is necessary to be implemented during clinical research to generate quality and accurate data. Each element of the clinical research must have been carried out according to the standard operating procedure (SOP), which is written/determined before the initiation of the study and during the preparation of the protocol [ 15 ].

The audit team (quality assurance group) is instrumental in determining the authenticity of the clinical research. The audit, according to the ICH and GCP, is an independent and external team that examines the process (recording the CRF, analysis of data, and interpretation of data) of clinical research. The quality assurance personnel are adequately trained, become trainers if needed, should be good communicators, and must handle any kind of situation. The audits can be at the investigator sites evaluating the CRF data, the protocol, and the personnel involved in clinical research (source data verification, monitors) [ 16 ].

Clinical trial operations are governed by legal and regulatory requirements, based on GCPs, and the application of science, technology, and interpersonal skills [ 17 ]. Clinical trial operations are complex, time and resource-specific that requires extensive planning and coordination, especially for the research which is conducted at multiple trial centers [ 18 ].

Recruiting the clinical trial participants/subjects is the most significant aspect of clinical trial operations. Previous research had noted that most clinical trials do not meet the participant numbers as decided in the protocol. Therefore, it is important to identify the potential barriers to patient recruitment [ 19 ].

Most clinical trials demand huge costs, increased timelines, and resources. Randomized clinical trial studies from Switzerland were analyzed for their costs which revealed approximately 72000 USD for a clinical trial to be completed. This study emphasized the need for increased transparency with respect to the costs associated with the clinical trial and improved collaboration between collaborators and stakeholders [ 20 ].

Clinical trial applications, monitoring, and audit

Among the most significant aspects of a clinical trial is the audit. An audit is a systematic process of evaluating the clinical trial operations at the site. The audit ensures that the clinical trial process is conducted according to the protocol, and predefined quality system procedures, following GCP guidelines, and according to the requirements of regulatory authorities [ 21 ].

The auditors are supposed to be independent and work without the involvement of the sponsors, CROs, or personnel at the trial site. The auditors ensure that the trial is conducted by designated professionally qualified, adequately trained personnel, with predefined responsibilities. The auditors also ensure the validity of the investigational drug, and the composition, and functioning of institutional review/ethics committees. The availability and correctness of the documents like the investigational broacher, informed consent forms, CRFs, approval letters of the regulatory authorities, and accreditation of the trial labs/sites [ 21 ].

The data management systems, the data collection software, data backup, recovery, and contingency plans, alternative data recording methods, security of the data, personnel training in data entry, and the statistical methods used to analyze the results of the trial are other important responsibilities of the auditor [ 21 , 22 ].

According to the ICH-GCP Sec 1.29 guidelines the inspection may be described as an act by the regulatory authorities to conduct an official review of the clinical trial-related documents, personnel (sponsor, investigator), and the trial site [ 21 , 22 ]. The summary report of the observations of the inspectors is performed using various forms as listed in Table ​ Table5 5 .

FDA: Food and Drug Administration; IND: investigational new drug; NDA: new drug application; IRB: institutional review board; CFR: code of federal regulations

Because protecting data integrity, the rights, safety, and well-being of the study participants are more significant while conducting a clinical trial, regular monitoring and audit of the process appear crucial. Also, the quality of the clinical trial greatly depends on the approach of the trial personnel which includes the sponsors and investigators [ 21 ].

The responsibility of monitoring lies in different hands, and it depends on the clinical trial site. When the trial is initiated by a pharmaceutical industry, the responsibility of trial monitoring depends on the company or the sponsor, and when the trial is conducted by an academic organization, the responsibility lies with the principal investigator [ 21 ].

An audit is a process conducted by an independent body to ensure the quality of the study. Basically, an audit is a quality assurance process that determines if a study is carried out by following the SPOs, in compliance with the GCPs recommended by regulatory bodies like the ICH, FDA, and other local bodies [ 21 ].

An audit is performed to review all the available documents related to the IRB approval, investigational drug, and the documents related to the patient care/case record forms. Other documents that are audited include the protocol (date, sign, treatment, compliance), informed consent form, treatment response/outcome, toxic response/adverse event recording, and the accuracy of data entry [ 22 ].

Clinical trial data analysis, regulatory audits, and project management

The essential elements of clinical trial management systems (CDMS) include the management of the study, the site, staff, subject, contracts, data, and document management, patient diary integration, medical coding, monitoring, adverse event reporting, supplier management, lab data, external interfaces, and randomization. The CDMS involves setting a defined start and finishing time, defining study objectives, setting enrolment and termination criteria, commenting, and managing the study design [ 23 ].

Among the various key application areas of clinical trial systems, the data analysis assumes increased significance. The clinical trial data collected at the site in the form of case record form is stored in the CDMS ensuring the errors with respect to the double data entry are minimized.

Clinical trial data management uses medical coding, which uses terminologies with respect to the medications and adverse events/serious adverse events that need to be entered into the CDMS. The project undertaken to conduct the clinical trial must be predetermined with timelines and milestones. Timelines are usually set for the preparation of protocol, designing the CRF, planning the project, identifying the first subject, and timelines for recording the patient’s data for the first visit.

The timelines also are set for the last subject to be recruited in the study, the CRF of the last subject, and the locked period after the last subject entry. The planning of the project also includes the modes of collection of the data, the methods of the transport of the CRFs, patient diaries, and records of severe adverse events, to the central data management sites (fax, scan, courier, etc.) [ 24 ].

The preparation of SOPs and the type and timing of the quality control (QC) procedures are also included in the project planning before the start of a clinical study. Review (budget, resources, quality of process, assessment), measure (turnaround times, training issues), and control (CRF collection and delivery, incentives, revising the process) are the three important aspects of the implementation of a clinical research project.

In view of the increasing complexity related to the conduct of clinical trials, it is important to perform a clinical quality assurance (CQA) audit. The CQA audit process consists of a detailed plan for conducting audits, points of improvement, generating meaningful audit results, verifying SOP, and regulatory compliance, and promoting improvement in clinical trial research [ 25 ]. All the components of a CQA audit are delineated in Table ​ Table6 6 .

CRF: case report form; CSR: clinical study report; IC: informed consent; PV: pharmacovigilance; SAE: serious adverse event

Clinical trial operations at the investigator's site

The selection of an investigation site is important before starting a clinical trial. It is essential that the individuals recruited for the study meet the inclusion criteria of the trial, and the investigator's and patient's willingness to accept the protocol design and the timelines set by the regulatory authorities including the IRBs.

Before conducting clinical research, it is important for an investigator to agree to the terms and conditions of the agreement and maintain the confidentiality of the protocol. Evaluation of the protocol for the feasibility of its practices with respect to the resources, infrastructure, qualified and trained personnel available, availability of the study subjects, and benefit to the institution and the investigator is done by the sponsor during the site selection visit.

The standards of a clinical research trial are ensured by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), United Nations Programme on Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) (UNAIDS), and World Medical Association (WMA) [ 26 ].

Recommendations for conducting clinical research based on the WMA support the slogan that says, “The health of my patient will be my first consideration.” According to the International Code of Medical Ethics (ICME), no human should be physically or mentally harmed during the clinical trial, and the study should be conducted in the best interest of the person [ 26 ].

Basic principles recommended by the Helsinki declaration include the conduction of clinical research only after the prior proof of the safety of the drug in animal and lab experiments. The clinical trials must be performed by scientifically, and medically qualified and well-trained personnel. Also, it is important to analyze the benefit of research over harm to the participants before initiating the drug trials.

The doctors may prescribe a drug to alleviate the suffering of the patient, save the patient from death, and gain additional knowledge of the drug only after obtaining informed consent. Under the equipoise principle, the investigators must be able to justify the treatment provided as a part of the clinical trial, wherein the patient in the placebo arm may be harmed due to the unavailability of the therapeutic/trial drug.

Clinical trial operations greatly depend on the environmental conditions and geographical attributes of the trial site. It may influence the costs and targets defined by the project before the initiation. It was noted that one-fourth of the clinical trial project proposals/applications submit critical data on the investigational drug from outside the country. Also, it was noted that almost 35% of delays in clinical trials owing to patient recruitment with one-third of studies enrolling only 5% of the participants [ 27 ].

It was suggested that clinical trial feasibility assessment in a defined geographical region may be undertaken for improved chances of success. Points to be considered under the feasibility assessment program include if the disease under the study is related to the population of the geographical region, appropriateness of the study design, patient, and comparator group, visit intervals, potential regulatory and ethical challenges, and commitments of the study partners, CROs in respective countries (multi-centric studies) [ 27 ].

Feasibility assessments may be undertaken at the program level (ethics, regulatory, and medical preparedness), study level (clinical, regulatory, technical, and operational aspects), and at the investigation site (investigational drug, competency of personnel, participant recruitment, and retention, quality systems, and infrastructural aspects) [ 27 ].

Clinical trials: true experiments

In accordance with the revised schedule "Y" of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (DCA) (2005), a drug trial may be defined as a systematic study of a novel drug component. The clinical trials aim to evaluate the pharmacodynamic, and pharmacokinetic properties including ADME, efficacy, and safety of new drugs.

According to the drug and cosmetic rules (DCR), 1945, a new chemical entity (NCE) may be defined as a novel drug approved for a disease/condition, in a specified route, and at a particular dosage. It also may be a new drug combination, of previously approved drugs.

A clinical trial may be performed in three types; one that is done to find the efficacy of an NCE, a comparison study of two drugs against a medical condition, and the clinical research of approved drugs on a disease/condition. Also, studies of the bioavailability and BE studies of the generic drugs, and the drugs already approved in other countries are done to establish the efficacy of new drugs [ 28 ].

Apart from the discovery of a novel drug, clinical trials are also conducted to approve novel medical devices for public use. A medical device is defined as any instrument, apparatus, appliance, software, and any other material used for diagnostic/therapeutic purposes. The medical devices may be divided into three classes wherein class I uses general controls; class II uses general and special controls, and class III uses general, special controls, and premarket approvals [ 28 ].

The premarket approval applications ensure the safety and effectiveness, and confirmation of the activities from bench to animal to human clinical studies. The FDA approval for investigational device exemption (IDE) for a device not approved for a new indication/disease/condition. There are two types of IDE studies that include the feasibility study (basic safety and potential effectiveness) and the pivotal study (trial endpoints, randomization, monitoring, and statistical analysis plan) [ 28 ].

As evidenced by the available literature, there are two types of research that include observational and experimental research. Experimental research is alternatively known as the true type of research wherein the research is conducted by the intervention of a new drug/device/method (educational research). Most true experiments use randomized control trials that remove bias and neutralize the confounding variables that may interfere with the results of research [ 28 ].

The variables that may interfere with the study results are independent variables also called prediction variables (the intervention), dependent variables (the outcome), and extraneous variables (other confounding factors that could influence the outside). True experiments have three basic elements that include manipulation (that influence independent variables), control (over extraneous influencers), and randomization (unbiased grouping) [ 29 ].

Experiments can also be grouped as true, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental studies depending on the presence of specific characteristic features. True experiments have all three elements of study design (manipulation, control, randomization), and prospective, and have great scientific validity. Quasi-experiments generally have two elements of design (manipulation and control), are prospective, and have moderate scientific validity. The non-experimental studies lack manipulation, control, and randomization, are generally retrospective, and have low scientific validity [ 29 ].

Clinical trials: epidemiological and human genetics study

Epidemiological studies are intended to control health issues by understanding the distribution, determinants, incidence, prevalence, and impact on health among a defined population. Such studies are attempted to perceive the status of infectious diseases as well as non-communicable diseases [ 30 ].

Experimental studies are of two types that include observational (cross-sectional studies (surveys), case-control studies, and cohort studies) and experimental studies (randomized control studies) [ 3 , 31 ]. Such research may pose challenges related to ethics in relation to the social and cultural milieu.

Biomedical research related to human genetics and transplantation research poses an increased threat to ethical concerns, especially after the success of the human genome project (HGP) in the year 2000. The benefits of human genetic studies are innumerable that include the identification of genetic diseases, in vitro fertilization, and regeneration therapy. Research related to human genetics poses ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that need to be appropriately addressed. Most importantly, these genetic research studies use advanced technologies which should be equally available to both economically well-placed and financially deprived people [ 32 ].

Gene therapy and genetic manipulations may potentially precipitate conflict of interest among the family members. The research on genetics may be of various types that include pedigree studies (identifying abnormal gene carriers), genetic screening (for diseases that may be heritable by the children), gene therapeutics (gene replacement therapy, gene construct administration), HGP (sequencing the whole human genome/deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprinting), and DNA, cell-line banking/repository [ 33 ]. The biobanks are established to collect and store human tissue samples like umbilical tissue, cord blood, and others [ 34 ].

Epidemiological studies on genetics are attempts to understand the prevalence of diseases that may be transmitted among families. The classical epidemiological studies may include single case observations (one individual), case series (< 10 individuals), ecological studies (population/large group of people), cross-sectional studies (defined number of individuals), case-control studies (defined number of individuals), cohort (defined number of individuals), and interventional studies (defined number of individuals) [ 35 ].

Genetic studies are of different types that include familial aggregation (case-parent, case-parent-grandparent), heritability (study of twins), segregation (pedigree study), linkage study (case-control), association, linkage, disequilibrium, cohort case-only studies (related case-control, unrelated case-control, exposure, non-exposure group, case group), cross-sectional studies, association cohort (related case-control, familial cohort), and experimental retrospective cohort (clinical trial, exposure, and non-exposure group) [ 35 ].

Ethics and concerns in clinical trial/research

Because clinical research involves animals and human participants, adhering to ethics and ethical practices assumes increased significance [ 36 ]. In view of the unethical research conducted on war soldiers after the Second World War, the Nuremberg code was introduced in 1947, which promulgated rules for permissible medical experiments on humans. The Nuremberg code suggests that informed consent is mandatory for all the participants in a clinical trial, and the study subjects must be made aware of the nature, duration, and purpose of the study, and potential health hazards (foreseen and unforeseen). The study subjects should have the liberty to withdraw at any time during the trial and to choose a physician upon medical emergency. The other essential principles of clinical research involving human subjects as suggested by the Nuremberg code included benefit to the society, justification of study as noted by the results of the drug experiments on animals, avoiding even minimal suffering to the study participants, and making sure that the participants don’t have life risk, humanity first, improved medical facilities for participants, and suitably qualified investigators [ 37 ].

During the 18th world medical assembly meeting in the year 1964, in Helsinki, Finland, ethical principles for doctors practicing research were proposed. Declaration of Helsinki, as it is known made sure that the interests and concerns of the human participants will always prevail over the interests of the society. Later in 1974, the National Research Act was proposed which made sure that the research proposals are thoroughly screened by the Institutional ethics/Review Board. In 1979, the April 18th Belmont report was proposed by the national commission for the protection of human rights during biomedical and behavioral research. The Belmont report proposed three core principles during research involving human participants that include respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. The ICH laid down GCP guidelines [ 38 ]. These guidelines are universally followed throughout the world during the conduction of clinical research involving human participants.

ICH was first founded in 1991, in Brussels, under the umbrella of the USA, Japan, and European countries. The ICH conference is conducted once every two years with the participation from the member countries, observers from the regulatory agencies, like the World Health Organization (WHO), European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and the Canadian Health Protection Branch, and other interested stakeholders from the academia and the industry. The expert working groups of the ICH ensure the quality, efficacy, and safety of the medicinal product (drug/device). Despite the availability of the Nuremberg code, the Belmont Report, and the ICH-GCP guidelines, in the year 1982, International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects was proposed by the CIOMS in association with WHO [ 39 ]. The CIOMS protects the rights of the vulnerable population, and ensures ethical practices during clinical research, especially in underdeveloped countries [ 40 ]. In India, the ethical principles for biomedical research involving human subjects were introduced by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in the year 2000 and were later amended in the year 2006 [ 41 ]. Clinical trial approvals can only be done by the IRB approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DGCI) as proposed in the year 2013 [ 42 ].

Current perspectives and future implications

A recent study attempted to evaluate the efficacy of adaptive clinical trials in predicting the success of a clinical trial drug that entered phase 3 and minimizing the time and cost of drug development. This study highlighted the drawbacks of such clinical trial designs that include the possibility of type 1 (false positive) and type 2 (false negative) errors [ 43 ].

The usefulness of animal studies during the preclinical phases of a clinical trial was evaluated in a previous study which concluded that animal studies may not completely guarantee the safety of the investigational drug. This is noted by the fact that many drugs which passed toxicity tests in animals produced adverse reactions in humans [ 44 ].

The significance of BE studies to compare branded and generic drugs was reported previously. The pharmacokinetic BE studies of Amoxycillin comparing branded and generic drugs were carried out among a group of healthy participants. The study results have demonstrated that the generic drug had lower Cmax as compared to the branded drug [ 45 ].

To establish the BE of the generic drugs, randomized crossover trials are carried out to assess the Cmax and the AUC. The ratio of each pharmacokinetic characteristic must match the ratio of AUC and/or Cmax, 1:1=1 for a generic drug to be considered as a bioequivalent to a branded drug [ 46 ].

Although the generic drug development is comparatively more beneficial than the branded drugs, synthesis of extended-release formulations of the generic drug appears to be complex. Since the extended-release formulations remain for longer periods in the stomach, they may be influenced by gastric acidity and interact with the food. A recent study suggested the use of bio-relevant dissolution tests to increase the successful production of generic extended-release drug formulations [ 47 ].

Although RCTs are considered the best designs, which rule out bias and the data/results obtained from such clinical research are the most reliable, RCTs may be plagued by miscalculation of the treatment outcomes/bias, problems of cointerventions, and contaminations [ 48 ].

The perception of healthcare providers regarding branded drugs and their view about the generic equivalents was recently analyzed and reported. It was noted that such a perception may be attributed to the flexible regulatory requirements for the approval of a generic drug as compared to a branded drug. Also, could be because a switch from a branded drug to a generic drug in patients may precipitate adverse events as evidenced by previous reports [ 49 ].

Because the vulnerable population like drug/alcohol addicts, mentally challenged people, children, geriatric age people, military persons, ethnic minorities, people suffering from incurable diseases, students, employees, and pregnant women cannot make decisions with respect to participating in a clinical trial, ethical concerns, and legal issues may prop up, that may be appropriately addressed before drug trials which include such groups [ 50 ].

Conclusions

Clinical research and clinical trials are important from the public health perspective. Clinical research facilitates scientists, public health administrations, and people to increase their understanding and improve preparedness with reference to the diseases prevalent in different geographical regions of the world. Moreover, clinical research helps in mitigating health-related problems as evidenced by the current Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic and other emerging and re-emerging microbial infections. Clinical trials are crucial to the development of drugs, devices, and vaccines. Therefore, scientists are required to be up to date with the process and procedures of clinical research and trials as discussed comprehensively in this review.

The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

Transforming Clinical Research to Meet Health Challenges

• 1 Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

The COVID-19 pandemic made “clinical trials” a household phrase, highlighting the critical value of clinical research in creating vaccines and treatments and demonstrating the need for large-scale, well-designed, and rapidly deployed clinical trials to address the public health emergency. As the largest public funder of clinical trials, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a high-level effort to absorb the lessons of the pandemic and to assess and build on ongoing initiatives to improve efficiency, accountability, and transparency in clinical research.

Read More About

Wolinetz CD , Tabak LA. Transforming Clinical Research to Meet Health Challenges. JAMA. 2023;329(20):1740–1741. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.3964

Manage citations:

© 2024

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing
• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

• Samantha Cruz Rivera, 
• Derek G. Kyte, 
• Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, 
• Thomas J. Keeley, 
• Melanie J. Calvert

• Published: August 9, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370
• Reader Comments

Increasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix.

Methods and findings

Two independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) ‘primary research-related impact’, (2) ‘influence on policy making’, (3) ‘health and health systems impact’, (4) ‘health-related and societal impact’, and (5) ‘broader economic impact’. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched.

Conclusions

The measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.

Author summary

Why was this study done.

• There is a growing interest in demonstrating the impact of research in order to minimise research waste, allocate resources efficiently, and maximise the benefit of research. However, there is no consensus on which is the most appropriate tool to measure the impact of research.
• To our knowledge, this review is the first to synthesise existing methodological frameworks for healthcare research impact, and the associated impact metrics by which various authors have proposed impact should be measured, into a unified matrix.

What did the researchers do and find?

• We conducted a systematic review identifying 24 existing methodological research impact frameworks.
• We scrutinised the sample, identifying and summarising 5 proposed impact categories, 16 impact subcategories, and over 80 metrics into an impact matrix and methodological framework.

What do these findings mean?

• This simplified consolidated methodological framework will help researchers to understand how a research study may give rise to differing forms of impact, as well as in what ways and at which time points these potential impacts might be measured.
• Incorporating these insights into the design of a study could enhance impact, optimizing the use of research resources.

Citation: Cruz Rivera S, Kyte DG, Aiyegbusi OL, Keeley TJ, Calvert MJ (2017) Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks. PLoS Med 14(8): e1002370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370

Academic Editor: Mike Clarke, Queens University Belfast, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: February 28, 2017; Accepted: July 7, 2017; Published: August 9, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Cruz Rivera et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and supporting files.

Funding: Funding was received from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript ( http://www.conacyt.mx/ ).

Competing interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MJC has received consultancy fees from Astellas and Ferring pharma and travel fees from the European Society of Cardiology outside the submitted work. TJK is in full-time paid employment for PAREXEL International.

Abbreviations: AIHS, Alberta Innovates—Health Solutions; CAHS, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences; CIHR, Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CINAHL+, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; EMBASE, Excerpta Medica Database; ERA, Excellence in Research for Australia; HEFCE, Higher Education Funding Council for England; HMIC, Health Management Information Consortium; HTA, Health Technology Assessment; IOM, Impact Oriented Monitoring; MDG, Millennium Development Goal; NHS, National Health Service; MEDLINE, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online; PHC RIS, Primary Health Care Research & Information Service; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PROM, patient-reported outcome measures; QALY, quality-adjusted life year; R&D, research and development; RAE, Research Assessment Exercise; REF, Research Excellence Framework; RIF, Research Impact Framework; RQF, Research Quality Framework; SDG, Sustainable Development Goal; SIAMPI, Social Impact Assessment Methods for research and funding instruments through the study of Productive Interactions between science and society

Introduction

In 2010, approximately US$240 billion was invested in healthcare research worldwide [ 1 ]. Such research is utilised by policy makers, healthcare providers, and clinicians to make important evidence-based decisions aimed at maximising patient benefit, whilst ensuring that limited healthcare resources are used as efficiently as possible to facilitate effective and sustainable service delivery. It is therefore essential that this research is of high quality and that it is impactful—i.e., it delivers demonstrable benefits to society and the wider economy whilst minimising research waste [ 1 , 2 ]. Research impact can be defined as ‘any identifiable ‘benefit to, or positive influence on the economy, society, public policy or services, health, the environment, quality of life or academia’ (p. 26) [ 3 ].

There are many purported benefits associated with the measurement of research impact, including the ability to (1) assess the quality of the research and its subsequent benefits to society; (2) inform and influence optimal policy and funding allocation; (3) demonstrate accountability, the value of research in terms of efficiency and effectiveness to the government, stakeholders, and society; and (4) maximise impact through better understanding the concept and pathways to impact [ 4 – 7 ].

Measuring and monitoring the impact of healthcare research has become increasingly common in the United Kingdom [ 5 ], Australia [ 5 ], and Canada [ 8 ], as governments, organisations, and higher education institutions seek a framework to allocate funds to projects that are more likely to bring the most benefit to society and the economy [ 5 ]. For example, in the UK, the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) has recently been used to assess the quality and impact of research in higher education institutions, through the assessment of impact cases studies and selected qualitative impact metrics [ 9 ]. This is the first initiative to allocate research funding based on the economic, societal, and cultural impact of research, although it should be noted that research impact only drives a proportion of this allocation (approximately 20%) [ 9 ].

In the UK REF, the measurement of research impact is seen as increasingly important. However, the impact element of the REF has been criticised in some quarters [ 10 , 11 ]. Critics deride the fact that REF impact is determined in a relatively simplistic way, utilising researcher-generated case studies, which commonly attempt to link a particular research outcome to an associated policy or health improvement despite the fact that the wider literature highlights great diversity in the way research impact may be demonstrated [ 12 , 13 ]. This led to the current debate about the optimal method of measuring impact in the future REF [ 10 , 14 ]. The Stern review suggested that research impact should not only focus on socioeconomic impact but should also include impact on government policy, public engagement, academic impacts outside the field, and teaching to showcase interdisciplinary collaborative impact [ 10 , 11 ]. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has recently set out the proposals for the REF 2021 exercise, confirming that the measurement of such impact will continue to form an important part of the process [ 15 ].

With increasing pressure for healthcare research to lead to demonstrable health, economic, and societal impact, there is a need for researchers to understand existing methodological impact frameworks and the means by which impact may be quantified (i.e., impact metrics; see Box 1 , 'Definitions’) to better inform research activities and funding decisions. From a researcher’s perspective, understanding the optimal pathways to impact can help inform study design aimed at maximising the impact of the project. At the same time, funders need to understand which aspects of impact they should focus on when allocating awards so they can make the most of their investment and bring the greatest benefit to patients and society [ 2 , 4 , 5 , 16 , 17 ].

Box 1. Definitions

• Research impact: ‘any identifiable benefit to, or positive influence on, the economy, society, public policy or services, health, the environment, quality of life, or academia’ (p. 26) [ 3 ].
• Methodological framework: ‘a body of methods, rules and postulates employed by a particular procedure or set of procedures (i.e., framework characteristics and development)’ [ 18 ].
• Pathway: ‘a way of achieving a specified result; a course of action’ [ 19 ].
• Quantitative metrics: ‘a system or standard of [quantitative] measurement’ [ 20 ].
• Narrative metrics: ‘a spoken or written account of connected events; a story’ [ 21 ].

Whilst previous researchers have summarised existing methodological frameworks and impact case studies [ 4 , 22 – 27 ], they have not summarised the metrics for use by researchers, funders, and policy makers. The aim of this review was therefore to (1) identify the methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact using systematic methods, (2) summarise common impact themes and metrics in an impact matrix, and (3) provide a simplified consolidated resource for use by funders, researchers, and policy makers.

Search strategy and selection criteria

Initially, a search strategy was developed to identify the available literature regarding the different methods to measure research impact. The following keywords: ‘Impact’, ‘Framework’, and ‘Research’, and their synonyms, were used during the search of the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE; Ovid) database, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+) database (inception to May 2017; see S1 Appendix for the full search strategy). Additionally, the nonindexed Journal of Research Evaluation was hand searched during the same timeframe using the keyword ‘Impact’. Other relevant articles were identified through 3 Internet search engines (Google, Google Scholar, and Google Images) using the keywords ‘Impact’, ‘Framework’, and ‘Research’, with the first 50 results screened. Google Images was searched because different methodological frameworks are summarised in a single image and can easily be identified through this search engine. Finally, additional publications were sought through communication with experts.

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (see S1 PRISMA Checklist ), 2 independent investigators systematically screened for publications describing, evaluating, or utilising a methodological research impact framework within the context of healthcare research [ 28 ]. Papers were eligible if they included full or partial methodological frameworks or pathways to research impact; both primary research and systematic reviews fitting these criteria were included. We included any methodological framework identified (original or modified versions) at the point of first occurrence. In addition, methodological frameworks were included if they were applicable to the healthcare discipline with no need of modification within their structure. We defined ‘methodological framework’ as ‘a body of methods, rules and postulates employed by a particular procedure or set of procedures (i.e., framework characteristics and development)’ [ 18 ], whereas we defined ‘pathway’ as ‘a way of achieving a specified result; a course of action’ [ 19 ]. Studies were excluded if they presented an existing (unmodified) methodological framework previously available elsewhere, did not explicitly describe a methodological framework but rather focused on a single metric (e.g., bibliometric analysis), focused on the impact or effectiveness of interventions rather than that of the research, or presented case study data only. There were no language restrictions.

Data screening

Records were downloaded into Endnote (version X7.3.1), and duplicates were removed. Two independent investigators (SCR and OLA) conducted all screening following a pilot aimed at refining the process. The records were screened by title and abstract before full-text articles of potentially eligible publications were retrieved for evaluation. A full-text screening identified the publications included for data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, with the involvement of a third reviewer (MJC, DGK, and TJK) when necessary.

Data extraction and analysis

Data extraction occurred after the final selection of included articles. SCR and OLA independently extracted details of impact methodological frameworks, the country of origin, and the year of publication, as well as the source, the framework description, and the methodology used to develop the framework. Information regarding the methodology used to develop each methodological framework was also extracted from framework webpages where available. Investigators also extracted details regarding each framework’s impact categories and subgroups, along with their proposed time to impact (‘short-term’, ‘mid-term’, or ‘long-term’) and the details of any metrics that had been proposed to measure impact, which are depicted in an impact matrix. The structure of the matrix was informed by the work of M. Buxton and S. Hanney [ 2 ], P. Buykx et al. [ 5 ], S. Kuruvila et al. [ 29 ], and A. Weiss [ 30 ], with the intention of mapping metrics presented in previous methodological frameworks in a concise way. A consensus meeting with MJC, DGK, and TJK was held to solve disagreements and finalise the data extraction process.

Included studies

Our original search strategy identified 359 citations from MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC, and the Journal of Research Evaluation, and 101 citations were returned using other sources (Google, Google Images, Google Scholar, and expert communication) (see Fig 1 ) [ 28 ]. In total, we retrieved 54 full-text articles for review. At this stage, 39 articles were excluded, as they did not propose new or modified methodological frameworks. An additional 15 articles were included following the backward and forward citation method. A total of 31 relevant articles were included in the final analysis, of which 24 were articles presenting unique frameworks and the remaining 7 were systematic reviews [ 4 , 22 – 27 ]. The search strategy was rerun on 15 May 2017. A further 19 publications were screened, and 2 were taken forward to full-text screening but were ineligible for inclusion.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370.g001

Methodological framework characteristics

The characteristics of the 24 included methodological frameworks are summarised in Table 1 , 'Methodological framework characteristics’. Fourteen publications proposed academic-orientated frameworks, which focused on measuring academic, societal, economic, and cultural impact using narrative and quantitative metrics [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 29 , 31 – 39 ]. Five publications focused on assessing the impact of research by focusing on the interaction process between stakeholders and researchers (‘productive interactions’), which is a requirement to achieve research impact. This approach tries to address the issue of attributing research impact to metrics [ 7 , 40 – 43 ]. Two frameworks focused on the importance of partnerships between researchers and policy makers, as a core element to accomplish research impact [ 44 , 45 ]. An additional 2 frameworks focused on evaluating the pathways to impact, i.e., linking processes between research and impact [ 30 , 46 ]. One framework assessed the ability of health technology to influence efficiency of healthcare systems [ 47 ]. Eight frameworks were developed in the UK [ 2 , 3 , 29 , 37 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 45 ], 6 in Canada [ 8 , 33 , 34 , 44 , 46 , 47 ], 4 in Australia [ 5 , 31 , 35 , 38 ], 3 in the Netherlands [ 7 , 40 , 41 ], and 2 in the United States [ 30 , 36 ], with 1 model developed with input from various countries [ 32 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370.t001

Methodological framework development

The included methodological frameworks varied in their development process, but there were some common approaches employed. Most included a literature review [ 2 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 31 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 40 – 46 ], although none of them used a recognised systematic method. Most also consulted with various stakeholders [ 3 , 8 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 35 – 38 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 ] but used differing methods to incorporate their views, including quantitative surveys [ 32 , 35 , 43 , 46 ], face-to-face interviews [ 7 , 29 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 42 , 43 ], telephone interviews [ 31 , 46 ], consultation [ 3 , 7 , 36 ], and focus groups [ 39 , 43 ]. A range of stakeholder groups were approached across the sample, including principal investigators [ 7 , 29 , 43 ], research end users [ 7 , 42 , 43 ], academics [ 3 , 8 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 46 ], award holders [ 43 ], experts [ 33 , 38 , 39 ], sponsors [ 33 , 39 ], project coordinators [ 32 , 42 ], and chief investigators [ 31 , 35 ]. However, some authors failed to identify the stakeholders involved in the development of their frameworks [ 2 , 5 , 34 , 41 , 45 ], making it difficult to assess their appropriateness. In addition, only 4 of the included papers reported using formal analytic methods to interpret stakeholder responses. These included the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences framework, which used conceptual cluster analysis [ 33 ]. The Research Contribution [ 42 ], Research Impact [ 29 ], and Primary Health Care & Information Service [ 31 ] used a thematic analysis approach. Finally, some authors went on to pilot their framework, which shaped refinements on the methodological frameworks until approval. Methods used to pilot the frameworks included a case study approach [ 2 , 3 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 ], contrasting results against available literature [ 29 ], the use of stakeholders’ feedback [ 7 ], and assessment tools [ 35 , 46 ].

Major impact categories

1. primary research-related impact..

A number of methodological frameworks advocated the evaluation of ‘research-related impact’. This encompassed content related to the generation of new knowledge, knowledge dissemination, capacity building, training, leadership, and the development of research networks. These outcomes were considered the direct or primary impacts of a research project, as these are often the first evidenced returns [ 30 , 62 ].

A number of subgroups were identified within this category, with frameworks supporting the collection of impact data across the following constructs: ‘research and innovation outcomes’; ‘dissemination and knowledge transfer’; ‘capacity building, training, and leadership’; and ‘academic collaborations, research networks, and data sharing’.

1 . 1 . Research and innovation outcomes . Twenty of the 24 frameworks advocated the evaluation of ‘research and innovation outcomes’ [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 29 – 39 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 46 ]. This subgroup included the following metrics: number of publications; number of peer-reviewed articles (including journal impact factor); citation rates; requests for reprints, number of reviews, and meta-analysis; and new or changes in existing products (interventions or technology), patents, and research. Additionally, some frameworks also sought to gather information regarding ‘methods/methodological contributions’. These advocated the collection of systematic reviews and appraisals in order to identify gaps in knowledge and determine whether the knowledge generated had been assessed before being put into practice [ 29 ].

1 . 2 . Dissemination and knowledge transfer . Nineteen of the 24 frameworks advocated the assessment of ‘dissemination and knowledge transfer’ [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 29 – 32 , 34 – 43 , 46 ]. This comprised collection of the following information: number of conferences, seminars, workshops, and presentations; teaching output (i.e., number of lectures given to disseminate the research findings); number of reads for published articles; article download rate and number of journal webpage visits; and citations rates in nonjournal media such as newspapers and mass and social media (i.e., Twitter and blogs). Furthermore, this impact subgroup considered the measurement of research uptake and translatability and the adoption of research findings in technological and clinical applications and by different fields. These can be measured through patents, clinical trials, and partnerships between industry and business, government and nongovernmental organisations, and university research units and researchers [ 29 ].

1 . 3 . Capacity building , training , and leadership . Fourteen of 24 frameworks suggested the evaluation of ‘capacity building, training, and leadership’ [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 29 , 31 – 35 , 39 – 41 , 43 ]. This involved collecting information regarding the number of doctoral and postdoctoral studentships (including those generated as a result of the research findings and those appointed to conduct the research), as well as the number of researchers and research-related staff involved in the research projects. In addition, authors advocated the collection of ‘leadership’ metrics, including the number of research projects managed and coordinated and the membership of boards and funding bodies, journal editorial boards, and advisory committees [ 29 ]. Additional metrics in this category included public recognition (number of fellowships and awards for significant research achievements), academic career advancement, and subsequent grants received. Lastly, the impact metric ‘research system management’ comprised the collection of information that can lead to preserving the health of the population, such as modifying research priorities, resource allocation strategies, and linking health research to other disciplines to maximise benefits [ 29 ].

1 . 4 . Academic collaborations , research networks , and data sharing . Lastly, 10 of the 24 frameworks advocated the collection of impact data regarding ‘academic collaborations (internal and external collaborations to complete a research project), research networks, and data sharing’ [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 29 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 43 ].

2. Influence on policy making.

Methodological frameworks addressing this major impact category focused on measurable improvements within a given knowledge base and on interactions between academics and policy makers, which may influence policy-making development and implementation. The returns generated in this impact category are generally considered as intermediate or midterm (1 to 3 years). These represent an important interim stage in the process towards the final expected impacts, such as quantifiable health improvements and economic benefits, without which policy change may not occur [ 30 , 62 ]. The following impact subgroups were identified within this category: ‘type and nature of policy impact’, ‘level of policy making’, and ‘policy networks’.

2 . 1 . Type and nature of policy impact . The most common impact subgroup, mentioned in 18 of the 24 frameworks, was ‘type and nature of policy impact’ [ 2 , 7 , 29 – 38 , 41 – 43 , 45 – 47 ]. Methodological frameworks addressing this subgroup stressed the importance of collecting information regarding the influence of research on policy (i.e., changes in practice or terminology). For instance, a project looking at trafficked adolescents and women (2003) influenced the WHO guidelines (2003) on ethics regarding this particular group [ 17 , 21 , 63 ].

2 . 2 . Level of policy impact . Thirteen of 24 frameworks addressed aspects surrounding the need to record the ‘level of policy impact’ (international, national, or local) and the organisations within a level that were influenced (local policy makers, clinical commissioning groups, and health and wellbeing trusts) [ 2 , 5 , 8 , 29 , 31 , 34 , 38 , 41 , 43 – 47 ]. Authors considered it important to measure the ‘level of policy impact’ to provide evidence of collaboration, coordination, and efficiency within health organisations and between researchers and health organisations [ 29 , 31 ].

2 . 3 . Policy networks . Five methodological frameworks highlighted the need to collect information regarding collaborative research with industry and staff movement between academia and industry [ 5 , 7 , 29 , 41 , 43 ]. A policy network emphasises the relationship between policy communities, researchers, and policy makers. This relationship can influence and lead to incremental changes in policy processes [ 62 ].

3. Health and health systems impact.

A number of methodological frameworks advocated the measurement of impacts on health and healthcare systems across the following impact subgroups: ‘quality of care and service delivering’, ‘evidence-based practice’, ‘improved information and health information management’, ‘cost containment and effectiveness’, ‘resource allocation’, and ‘health workforce’.

3 . 1 . Quality of care and service delivery . Twelve of the 24 frameworks highlighted the importance of evaluating ‘quality of care and service delivery’ [ 2 , 5 , 8 , 29 – 31 , 33 – 36 , 41 , 47 ]. There were a number of suggested metrics that could be potentially used for this purpose, including health outcomes such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient satisfaction and experience surveys, and qualitative data on waiting times and service accessibility.

3 . 2 . Evidence-based practice . ‘Evidence-based practice’, mentioned in 5 of the 24 frameworks, refers to making changes in clinical diagnosis, clinical practice, treatment decisions, or decision making based on research evidence [ 5 , 8 , 29 , 31 , 33 ]. The suggested metrics to demonstrate evidence-based practice were adoption of health technologies and research outcomes to improve the healthcare systems and inform policies and guidelines [ 29 ].

3 . 3 . Improved information and health information management . This impact subcategory, mentioned in 5 of the 24 frameworks, refers to the influence of research on the provision of health services and management of the health system to prevent additional costs [ 5 , 29 , 33 , 34 , 38 ]. Methodological frameworks advocated the collection of health system financial, nonfinancial (i.e., transport and sociopolitical implications), and insurance information in order to determine constraints within a health system.

3 . 4 . Cost containment and cost-effectiveness . Six of the 24 frameworks advocated the subcategory ‘cost containment and cost-effectiveness’ [ 2 , 5 , 8 , 17 , 33 , 36 ]. ‘Cost containment’ comprised the collection of information regarding how research has influenced the provision and management of health services and its implication in healthcare resource allocation and use [ 29 ]. ‘Cost-effectiveness’ refers to information concerning economic evaluations to assess improvements in effectiveness and health outcomes—for instance, the cost-effectiveness (cost and health outcome benefits) assessment of introducing a new health technology to replace an older one [ 29 , 31 , 64 ].

3 . 5 . Resource allocation . ‘Resource allocation’, mentioned in 6frameworks, can be measured through 2 impact metrics: new funding attributed to the intervention in question and equity while allocating resources, such as improved allocation of resources at an area level; better targeting, accessibility, and utilisation; and coverage of health services [ 2 , 5 , 29 , 31 , 45 , 47 ]. The allocation of resources and targeting can be measured through health services research reports, with the utilisation of health services measured by the probability of providing an intervention when needed, the probability of requiring it again in the future, and the probability of receiving an intervention based on previous experience [ 29 , 31 ].

3 . 6 . Health workforce . Lastly, ‘health workforce’, present in 3 methodological frameworks, refers to the reduction in the days of work lost because of a particular illness [ 2 , 5 , 31 ].

4. Health-related and societal impact.

Three subgroups were included in this category: ‘health literacy’; ‘health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours’; and ‘improved social equity, inclusion, or cohesion’.

4 . 1 . Health knowledge , attitudes , and behaviours . Eight of the 24 frameworks suggested the assessment of ‘health knowledge, attitudes, behaviours, and outcomes’, which could be measured through the evaluation of levels of public engagement with science and research (e.g., National Health Service (NHS) Choices end-user visit rate) or by using focus groups to analyse changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour among society [ 2 , 5 , 29 , 33 – 35 , 38 , 43 ].

4 . 2 . Improved equity , inclusion , or cohesion and human rights . Other methodological frameworks, 4 of the 24, suggested capturing improvements in equity, inclusion, or cohesion and human rights. Authors suggested these could be using a resource like the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (superseded by Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs] in 2015) and human rights [ 29 , 33 , 34 , 38 ]. For instance, a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Nepal, which had female participants, has demonstrated the reduction of neonatal mortality through the introduction of maternity health care, distribution of delivery kits, and home visits. This illustrates how research can target vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. Additionally, this research has been introduced by the World Health Organisation to achieve the MDG ‘improve maternal health’ [ 16 , 29 , 65 ].

4 . 3 . Health literacy . Some methodological frameworks, 3 of the 24, focused on tracking changes in the ability of patients to make informed healthcare decisions, reduce health risks, and improve quality of life, which were demonstrably linked to a particular programme of research [ 5 , 29 , 43 ]. For example, a systematic review showed that when HIV health literacy/knowledge is spread among people living with the condition, antiretroviral adherence and quality of life improve [ 66 ].

5. Broader economic impacts.

Some methodological frameworks, 9 of 24, included aspects related to the broader economic impacts of health research—for example, the economic benefits emerging from the commercialisation of research outputs [ 2 , 5 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 67 ]. Suggested metrics included the amount of funding for research and development (R&D) that was competitively awarded by the NHS, medical charities, and overseas companies. Additional metrics were income from intellectual property, spillover effects (any secondary benefit gained as a repercussion of investing directly in a primary activity, i.e., the social and economic returns of investing on R&D) [ 33 ], patents granted, licences awarded and brought to the market, the development and sales of spinout companies, research contracts, and income from industry.

The benefits contained within the categories ‘health and health systems impact’, ‘health-related and societal impact’, and ‘broader economic impacts’ are considered the expected and final returns of the resources allocated in healthcare research [ 30 , 62 ]. These benefits commonly arise in the long term, beyond 5 years according to some authors, but there was a recognition that this could differ depending on the project and its associated research area [ 4 ].

Data synthesis

Five major impact categories were identified across the 24 included methodological frameworks: (1) ‘primary research-related impact’, (2) ‘influence on policy making’, (3) ‘health and health systems impact’, (4) ‘health-related and societal impact’, and (5) ‘broader economic impact’. These major impact categories were further subdivided into 16 impact subgroups. The included publications proposed 80 different metrics to measure research impact. This impact typology synthesis is depicted in ‘the impact matrix’ ( Fig 2 and Fig 3 ).

CIHR, Canadian Institutes of Health Research; HTA, Health Technology Assessment; PHC RIS, Primary Health Care Research & Information Service; RAE, Research Assessment Exercise; RQF, Research Quality Framework.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370.g002

AIHS, Alberta Innovates—Health Solutions; CAHS, Canadian Institutes of Health Research; IOM, Impact Oriented Monitoring; REF, Research Excellence Framework; SIAMPI, Social Impact Assessment Methods for research and funding instruments through the study of Productive Interactions between science and society.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370.g003

Commonality and differences across frameworks

The ‘Research Impact Framework’ and the ‘Health Services Research Impact Framework’ were the models that encompassed the largest number of the metrics extracted. The most dominant methodological framework was the Payback Framework; 7 other methodological framework models used the Payback Framework as a starting point for development [ 8 , 29 , 31 – 35 ]. Additional methodological frameworks that were commonly incorporated into other tools included the CIHR framework, the CAHS model, the AIHS framework, and the Exchange model [ 8 , 33 , 34 , 44 ]. The capture of ‘research-related impact’ was the most widely advocated concept across methodological frameworks, illustrating the importance with which primary short-term impact outcomes were viewed by the included papers. Thus, measurement of impact via number of publications, citations, and peer-reviewed articles was the most common. ‘Influence on policy making’ was the predominant midterm impact category, specifically the subgroup ‘type and nature of policy impact’, in which frameworks advocated the measurement of (i) changes to legislation, regulations, and government policy; (ii) influence and involvement in decision-making processes; and (iii) changes to clinical or healthcare training, practice, or guidelines. Within more long-term impact measurement, the evaluations of changes in the ‘quality of care and service delivery’ were commonly advocated.

In light of the commonalities and differences among the methodological frameworks, the ‘pathways to research impact’ diagram ( Fig 4 ) was developed to provide researchers, funders, and policy makers a more comprehensive and exhaustive way to measure healthcare research impact. The diagram has the advantage of assorting all the impact metrics proposed by previous frameworks and grouping them into different impact subgroups and categories. Prospectively, this global picture will help researchers, funders, and policy makers plan strategies to achieve multiple pathways to impact before carrying the research out. The analysis of the data extraction and construction of the impact matrix led to the development of the ‘pathways to research impact’ diagram ( Fig 4 ). The diagram aims to provide an exhaustive and comprehensive way of tracing research impact by combining all the impact metrics presented by the different 24 frameworks, grouping those metrics into different impact subgroups, and grouping these into broader impact categories.

NHS, National Health Service; PROM, patient-reported outcome measure; QALY, quality-adjusted life year; R&D, research and development.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370.g004

This review has summarised existing methodological impact frameworks together for the first time using systematic methods ( Fig 4 ). It allows researchers and funders to consider pathways to impact at the design stage of a study and to understand the elements and metrics that need to be considered to facilitate prospective assessment of impact. Users do not necessarily need to cover all the aspects of the methodological framework, as every research project can impact on different categories and subgroups. This review provides information that can assist researchers to better demonstrate impact, potentially increasing the likelihood of conducting impactful research and reducing research waste. Existing reviews have not presented a methodological framework that includes different pathways to impact, health impact categories, subgroups, and metrics in a single methodological framework.

Academic-orientated frameworks included in this review advocated the measurement of impact predominantly using so-called ‘quantitative’ metrics—for example, the number of peer-reviewed articles, journal impact factor, and citation rates. This may be because they are well-established measures, relatively easy to capture and objective, and are supported by research funding systems. However, these metrics primarily measure the dissemination of research finding rather than its impact [ 30 , 68 ]. Whilst it is true that wider dissemination, especially when delivered via world-leading international journals, may well lead eventually to changes in healthcare, this is by no means certain. For instance, case studies evaluated by Flinders University of Australia demonstrated that some research projects with non-peer-reviewed publications led to significant changes in health policy, whilst the studies with peer-reviewed publications did not result in any type of impact [ 68 ]. As a result, contemporary literature has tended to advocate the collection of information regarding a variety of different potential forms of impact alongside publication/citations metrics [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 29 – 47 ], as outlined in this review.

The 2014 REF exercise adjusted UK university research funding allocation based on evidence of the wider impact of research (through case narrative studies and quantitative metrics), rather than simply according to the quality of research [ 12 ]. The intention was to ensure funds were directed to high-quality research that could demonstrate actual realised benefit. The inclusion of a mixed-method approach to the measurement of impact in the REF (narrative and quantitative metrics) reflects a widespread belief—expressed by the majority of authors of the included methodological frameworks in the review—that individual quantitative impact metrics (e.g., number of citations and publications) do not necessary capture the complexity of the relationships involved in a research project and may exclude measurement of specific aspects of the research pathway [ 10 , 12 ].

Many of the frameworks included in this review advocated the collection of a range of academic, societal, economic, and cultural impact metrics; this is consistent with recent recommendations from the Stern review [ 10 ]. However, a number of these metrics encounter research ‘lag’: i.e., the time between the point at which the research is conducted and when the actual benefits arise [ 69 ]. For instance, some cardiovascular research has taken up to 25 years to generate impact [ 70 ]. Likewise, the impact may not arise exclusively from a single piece of research. Different processes (such as networking interactions and knowledge and research translation) and multiple individuals and organisations are often involved [ 4 , 71 ]. Therefore, attributing the contribution made by each of the different actors involved in the process can be a challenge [ 4 ]. An additional problem associated to attribution is the lack of evidence to link research and impact. The outcomes of research may emerge slowly and be absorbed gradually. Consequently, it is difficult to determine the influence of research in the development of a new policy, practice, or guidelines [ 4 , 23 ].

A further problem is that impact evaluation is conducted ‘ex post’, after the research has concluded. Collecting information retrospectively can be an issue, as the data required might not be available. ‘ex ante’ assessment is vital for funding allocation, as it is necessary to determine the potential forthcoming impact before research is carried out [ 69 ]. Additionally, ex ante evaluation of potential benefit can overcome the issues regarding identifying and capturing evidence, which can be used in the future [ 4 ]. In order to conduct ex ante evaluation of potential benefit, some authors suggest the early involvement of policy makers in a research project coupled with a well-designed strategy of dissemination [ 40 , 69 ].

Providing an alternate view, the authors of methodological frameworks such as the SIAMPI, Contribution Mapping, Research Contribution, and the Exchange model suggest that the problems of attribution are a consequence of assigning the impact of research to a particular impact metric [ 7 , 40 , 42 , 44 ]. To address these issues, these authors propose focusing on the contribution of research through assessing the processes and interactions between stakeholders and researchers, which arguably take into consideration all the processes and actors involved in a research project [ 7 , 40 , 42 , 43 ]. Additionally, contributions highlight the importance of the interactions between stakeholders and researchers from an early stage in the research process, leading to a successful ex ante and ex post evaluation by setting expected impacts and determining how the research outcomes have been utilised, respectively [ 7 , 40 , 42 , 43 ]. However, contribution metrics are generally harder to measure in comparison to academic-orientated indicators [ 72 ].

Currently, there is a debate surrounding the optimal methodological impact framework, and no tool has proven superior to another. The most appropriate methodological framework for a given study will likely depend on stakeholder needs, as each employs different methodologies to assess research impact [ 4 , 37 , 41 ]. This review allows researchers to select individual existing methodological framework components to create a bespoke tool with which to facilitate optimal study design and maximise the potential for impact depending on the characteristic of their study ( Fig 2 and Fig 3 ). For instance, if researchers are interested in assessing how influential their research is on policy making, perhaps considering a suite of the appropriate metrics drawn from multiple methodological frameworks may provide a more comprehensive method than adopting a single methodological framework. In addition, research teams may wish to use a multidimensional approach to methodological framework development, adopting existing narratives and quantitative metrics, as well as elements from contribution frameworks. This approach would arguably present a more comprehensive method of impact assessment; however, further research is warranted to determine its effectiveness [ 4 , 69 , 72 , 73 ].

Finally, it became clear during this review that the included methodological frameworks had been constructed using varied methodological processes. At present, there are no guidelines or consensus around the optimal pathway that should be followed to develop a robust methodological framework. The authors believe this is an area that should be addressed by the research community, to ensure future frameworks are developed using best-practice methodology.

For instance, the Payback Framework drew upon a literature review and was refined through a case study approach. Arguably, this approach could be considered inferior to other methods that involved extensive stakeholder involvement, such as the CIHR framework [ 8 ]. Nonetheless, 7 methodological frameworks were developed based upon the Payback Framework [ 8 , 29 , 31 – 35 ].

Limitations

The present review is the first to summarise systematically existing impact methodological frameworks and metrics. The main limitation is that 50% of the included publications were found through methods other than bibliographic databases searching, indicating poor indexing. Therefore, some relevant articles may not have been included in this review if they failed to indicate the inclusion of a methodological impact framework in their title/abstract. We did, however, make every effort to try to find these potentially hard-to-reach publications, e.g., through forwards/backwards citation searching, hand searching reference lists, and expert communication. Additionally, this review only extracted information regarding the methodology followed to develop each framework from the main publication source or framework webpage. Therefore, further evaluations may not have been included, as they are beyond the scope of the current paper. A further limitation was that although our search strategy did not include language restrictions, we did not specifically search non-English language databases. Thus, we may have failed to identify potentially relevant methodological frameworks that were developed in a non-English language setting.

In conclusion, the measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological impact frameworks and metrics, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.

Supporting information

S1 appendix. search strategy..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370.s001

S1 PRISMA Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370.s002

Acknowledgments

We would also like to thank Mrs Susan Bayliss, Information Specialist, University of Birmingham, and Mrs Karen Biddle, Research Secretary, University of Birmingham.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. HEFCE. REF 2014: Assessment framework and guidance on submissions 2011 [cited 2016 15 Feb]. Available from: http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf .
• 8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Developing a CIHR framework to measure the impact of health research 2005 [cited 2016 26 Feb]. Available from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MR21-65-2005E.pdf .
• 9. HEFCE. HEFCE allocates £3.97 billion to universities and colleges in England for 2015–1 2015. Available from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2015/Name,103785,en.html .
• 10. Stern N. Building on Success and Learning from Experience—An Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework 2016 [cited 2016 05 Aug]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind-16-9-ref-stern-review.pdf .
• 11. Matthews D. REF sceptic to lead review into research assessment: Times Higher Education; 2015 [cited 2016 21 Apr]. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ref-sceptic-lead-review-research-assessment .
• 12. HEFCE. The Metric Tide—Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management 2015 [cited 2016 11 Aug]. Available from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2015/The,Metric,Tide/2015_metric_tide.pdf .
• 14. LSE Public Policy Group. Maximizing the impacts of your research: A handbook for social scientists. http://www.lse.ac.uk/government/research/resgroups/LSEPublicPolicy/Docs/LSE_Impact_Handbook_April_2011.pdf . London: LSE; 2011.
• 15. HEFCE. Consultation on the second Research Excellence Framework. 2016.
• 18. Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2017. Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology .
• 19. Oxford Dictionaries—pathway 2016 [cited 2016 19 June]. Available from: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pathway .
• 20. Oxford Dictionaries—metric 2016 [cited 2016 15 Sep]. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/metric .
• 21. WHO. WHO Ethical and Safety Guidelines for Interviewing Trafficked Women 2003 [cited 2016 29 July]. Available from: http://www.who.int/mip/2003/other_documents/en/Ethical_Safety-GWH.pdf .
• 31. Kalucy L, et al. Primary Health Care Research Impact Project: Final Report Stage 1 Adelaide: Primary Health Care Research & Information Service; 2007 [cited 2016 26 Feb]. Available from: http://www.phcris.org.au/phplib/filedownload.php?file=/elib/lib/downloaded_files/publications/pdfs/phcris_pub_3338.pdf .
• 33. Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. Making an impact—A preferred framework and indicators to measure returns on investment in health research 2009 [cited 2016 26 Feb]. Available from: http://www.cahs-acss.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ROI_FullReport.pdf .
• 39. HEFCE. RAE 2008—Guidance in submissions 2005 [cited 2016 15 Feb]. Available from: http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/rae0305.pdf .
• 41. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The societal impact of applied health research—Towards a quality assessment system 2002 [cited 2016 29 Feb]. Available from: https://www.knaw.nl/en/news/publications/the-societal-impact-of-applied-health-research/@@download/pdf_file/20021098.pdf .
• 48. Weiss CH. Using social research in public policy making: Lexington Books; 1977.
• 50. Kogan M, Henkel M. Government and research: the Rothschild experiment in a government department: Heinemann Educational Books; 1983.
• 51. Thomas P. The Aims and Outcomes of Social Policy Research. Croom Helm; 1985.
• 52. Bulmer M. Social Science Research and Government: Comparative Essays on Britain and the United States: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
• 53. Booth T. Developing Policy Research. Aldershot, Gower1988.
• 55. Kalucy L, et al Exploring the impact of primary health care research Stage 2 Primary Health Care Research Impact Project Adelaide: Primary Health Care Research & Information Service (PHCRIS); 2009 [cited 2016 26 Feb]. Available from: http://www.phcris.org.au/phplib/filedownload.php?file=/elib/lib/downloaded_files/publications/pdfs/phcris_pub_8108.pdf .
• 56. CHSRF. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation 2000. Health Services Research and Evidence-based Decision Making [cited 2016 February]. Available from: http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/mythbusters/EBDM_e.pdf .
• 58. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Logic Model Development Guide 2004 [cited 2016 19 July]. Available from: http://www.smartgivers.org/uploads/logicmodelguidepdf.pdf .
• 59. United Way of America. Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach 1996 [cited 2016 19 July]. Available from: https://www.bttop.org/sites/default/files/public/W.K.%20Kellogg%20LogicModel.pdf .
• 60. Nutley S, Percy-Smith J and Solesbury W. Models of research impact: a cross sector review of literature and practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre 2003.
• 61. Spaapen J, van Drooge L. SIAMPI final report [cited 2017 Jan]. Available from: http://www.siampi.eu/Content/SIAMPI_Final%20report.pdf .
• 63. LSHTM. The Health Risks and Consequences of Trafficking in Women and Adolescents—Findings from a European Study 2003 [cited 2016 29 July]. Available from: http://www.oas.org/atip/global%20reports/zimmerman%20tip%20health.pdf .
• 70. Russell G. Response to second HEFCE consultation on the Research Excellence Framework 2009 [cited 2016 04 Apr]. Available from: http://russellgroup.ac.uk/media/5262/ref-consultation-response-final-dec09.pdf .

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 August 2019

Empirical research in clinical supervision: a systematic review and suggestions for future studies

• Franziska Kühne   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9636-5247 1 ,
• Jana Maas 1 ,
• Sophia Wiesenthal 1 &
• Florian Weck 1  

BMC Psychology volume  7 , Article number:  54 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

36 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Although clinical supervision is considered to be a major component of the development and maintenance of psychotherapeutic competencies, and despite an increase in supervision research, the empirical evidence on the topic remains sparse.

Because most previous reviews lack methodological rigor, we aimed to review the status and quality of the empirical literature on clinical supervision, and to provide suggestions for future research. MEDLINE, PsycInfo and the Web of Science Core Collection were searched and the review was conducted according to current guidelines. From the review results, we derived suggestions for future research on clinical supervision.

The systematic literature search identified 19 publications from 15 empirical studies. Taking into account the review results, the following suggestions for further research emerged: Supervision research would benefit from proper descriptions of how studies are conducted according to current guidelines, more methodologically rigorous empirical studies, the investigation of active supervision interventions, from taking diverse outcome domains into account, and from investigating supervision from a meta-theoretical perspective.

Conclusions

In all, the systematic review supported the notion that supervision research often lags behind psychotherapy research in general. Still, the results offer detailed starting points for further supervision research.

Trial registration

PROSPERO; CRD42017072606 , registered on June 20, 2017.

Peer Review reports

Although in psychotherapy training and in profession-long learning, clinical supervision is regarded as one of the major components for change in psychotherapeutic competencies and expertise, its evidence base is still considered weak [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Clinical supervision is currently considered a distinct competency in need of professional training and systematic evaluation; however, theoretical developments and experience-driven practice still seem to diverge, and “significant gaps in the research base” are evident ([ 1 ], p. 88).

Definitions of supervision underline different aspects, whereas a lack of consensus seems to impede research [ 1 ]. Falender and Shafranske [ 4 , 5 ] stress the development of testable psychotherapeutic competencies in the learners, i.e., their knowledge, skills and values/attitudes, through supervision; on the other hand, supervisors need to develop competence to deliver supervision. Milne and Watkins [ 6 ] describe clinical supervision as “the formal provision, by approved supervisors, of a relationship-based education and training that is work-focused and which manages, supports, develops and evaluates the work of colleague/s” (p. 4). In contrast, Bernard and Goodyear [ 7 ] emphasize supervision’s hierarchical approach, in as much as it is provided by more senior to more junior members of a profession. The goals of supervision may thus range between the poles of being normative (i.e., ensuring quality and case management), restorative (i.e., providing emotional and coping support) and formative (i.e., promoting therapeutic competence), and, thus, may ultimately lead to effective and safe psychotherapy [ 6 ]. Hence, it is pivotal for supervisors to reflect upon their own knowledge or skills gaps, and to engage in further qualification [ 8 ]. Clinical supervision may involve different therapeutic approaches and thus addresses therapists from varying mental health backgrounds [ 8 ], which is the stance taken in the current review.

Besides providing a definition of clinical supervision, it is relevant to delineate related terms. One is feedback , a supervision technique that “refers to the ‘timely and specific’ process of explicitly communicating information about performance” ([ 8 ], p. 28). Contrary to supervision, coaching strives to enhance well-being and performance in personal and work domains [ 9 ], and is therefore clearly distinct from supervision and psychotherapy with mental health patients provided by licensed therapists.

In the supervision literature, there is no paucity of narrative reviews, commentaries or concept papers. Previous reviews have revealed positive effects of supervision, for example on supervisee’s satisfaction, autonomy, awareness or self-efficacy [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Still, results on the impact of supervision on patient outcomes are still considered mixed [ 10 ]. Importantly, there is a knowledge gap regarding the active components of supervision, i.e., the effects of supervision or supervisor interventions on supervisees and their patients [ 10 ].

Past reviews, however, suffer from several limitations (for details, see [ 14 ]). First of all, strategies used for literature search and screening have not always been described or implemented rigorously, that is, implemented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA [ 15 ]) reporting guidelines (e.g. [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]). Further, several reviews focus specifically on the positive effects of supervision [ 19 ] or specifically on learning disabilities [ 11 ], emphasize the authors’ point of view [ 20 , 21 ], or concentrate on the supervisory relationship only [ 14 ]. While the majority of the above-mentioned reviews are narrative, Alfonsson and colleagues conducted a systematic review [ 14 ], pre-registered and published a review protocol [ 22 ] and implemented a thorough literature search and methodological appraisal. However, since they focused exclusively on cognitive behavioral supervision and on experimental designs, only five studies fit their inclusion criteria. Additionally, interrater agreement was only moderate during screening. Likewise, in our previous scoping review [ 23 ], we concentrated on cognitive behavioral supervision. Furthermore, like other supervision reviews [ 20 , 21 ], it was published in German only, limiting its scope.

Thus, the current systematic review aimed to complement previous reviews by using a comprehensive methodology and concise reporting. First, we aimed to review the current status of supervision interventions (e.g., setting, session frequency, therapeutic background) and of the methodological quality of the empirical literature on clinical supervision. Second, we aimed to provide suggestions for future supervision research.

Materials and methods

We conducted a systematic review by referring to the PRISMA reporting guidelines [ 15 ]. The review protocol was registered and published with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42017072606).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We included studies referring to clinical supervision as defined above by Milne and Watkins [ 6 ] above. Both, supervision conducted on its own or as part of a larger intervention (as in psychotherapy training) were included. Treatment studies in which supervision was conducted solely to foster treatment delivery were excluded because they mainly address study adherence and are still covered in other reviews [ 24 , 25 ]. Furthermore, clinical supervision had to refer to psychotherapy, whereas supportive interventions accompanying other treatments (e.g., clinical management) were excluded. Thus, we included studies referring to mental health patients, and studies with patients with physical diseases were considered only if the reason for treatment was patients’ mental health. Studies with another population (e.g., simulated patients or pseudo-clients) were excluded. In order to focus the review in the heterogeneous field of clinical supervision, we limited it to adult patients. Studies on family therapy were included if they focused on adults. Studies with mixed adult and child/adolescent populations were included if the results were reported for the adult population separately. No prerequisites were predefined for supervisor qualification. Any empirical study published within a peer-reviewed process (i.e., without commentaries or reviews) and any outcome measures were included. As such, any supervision outcome (e.g., supervisees’ satisfaction or competence), including negative or unexpected outcomes (e.g., non-disclosure), were allowed. In line with Hill & Knox [ 10 ], we did not focus on studies exclusively examining the supervision process because firstly, it does not provide knowledge on the effectiveness of supervision, and secondly, relationship variables are already covered by other reviews [ 11 ]. Thus, the review focused on supervision interventions, and studies exclusively focusing on the effects of relationship variables or attitudes between the supervisee and supervisor (i.e., as independent variables) were excluded. However, relationship variables were considered if they were considered as dependent variables in the primary studies.

Study search

The bibliographic database search was conducted during February and March 2017 in key electronic mental health databases (Fig.  1 ). To include the current evidence, we focused our search on studies published from 1996 onwards. There were no language restrictions. The following search strategy was used: supervis* AND (psychotherap* OR cognitive-behav* OR behav* therapy OR CBT OR psychodynamic OR psychoanaly* OR occupational therapy OR family therapy OR marital therapy) NOT (management OR employ* OR child* OR adolesc*). Then, we inspected the reference lists of the included studies (backward search) and conducted a cited reference search (forward search). We finished our search in July 2017.

Flowchart on study selection. Adapted from Moher and colleagues (15); SV: supervision

Screening and extraction

Referring to Perepletchikova, Treat and Kazdin [ 26 ], one reviewer (FK) introduced two Master’s psychology students (JM, SW) to the review methods, and the group discussed the review process in weekly one-hour sessions. First, titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion (JM, SW). The first 10% ( n  = 671) of all titles and abstracts were screened by both raters independently. Inter-rater agreement regarding title/abstract screening amounted to κ = .83 [CI = .73–.93], which is considered high [ 27 ].

Next, full texts of eligible and unclear studies were retrieved and then screened again independently by both raters (JM, SW). Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through the inclusion of a third reviewer (FK). If publications were not available through inter-library loans, a copy was requested from the corresponding author. For nine authors, contact details were not retrievable, and out of the 15 authors that were contacted, five replied. Inter-rater agreement concerning full text screenings for inclusion/exclusion was κ = .87 [CI = .77–.97].

For data extraction, we used a structured form that was piloted by three reviewers (FK, JM, SW) on five studies. It comprised information on supervision characteristics (e.g., setting, implementation and competence) and study characteristics (e.g., design, main outcome). Data were extracted independently by two raters, the results were then compared, and disagreements resolved again by mutual inspection of the original data.

Methodological quality

Since we included various study designs, we could not refer to one common tool for the assessment of methodological quality. We therefore developed a comprehensive tool applicable to various study designs to allow for comparability between studies. For the development, we followed prominent recommendations [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]. The items were as follows: a) an appropriate design regarding the study question; b) the selection of participants; c) measurement of variables/data collection; d) control/consideration of confounding variables; and e) other sources of bias (such as allegiance bias or conflicts of interest). Every item was rated on whether low (1), medium (2) or high (3) threats to the methodological quality were supposed. The resulting sum score ranges from 5 to 15, with higher values indicating the possibility of greater threats to the methodological quality. The methodological quality was rated by two review authors independently (JM or SW and FK). Inter-rater reliability for the sum scores reached ICC (1, 2) = .88 [CI = .70–.95], which is considered high [ 30 ]. Disagreements in ratings were again resolved through discussion within the review group.

Due to the heterogeneity of the study designs and outcomes, we will present the review results narratively and in clearly arranged evidence tables.

Current status of supervision

Psychotherapies.

Overall, 15 empirical studies allocated to 19 publications were included (Fig.  1 ). Information on the supervision characteristics is reported on the study level (Table  1 ). Most of the supervisees used cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) as the active intervention [ 35 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 ], in four studies, specific interventions such as Motivational Interviewing (MI [ 38 , 42 ]), Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT [ 41 ];) or Problem Solving Treatment (PST [ 32 ]) were used, and one study referred to psychodynamic therapy [ 31 ] (recommendation to “Conduct supervision from a meta-theoretical perspective”).

Supervisions

Only a minority of studies described any form of supervision manual used or any prior training of supervisors [ 32 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 43 ]. In most cases, supervisees were postgraduates or had a PhD degree. Regarding the frequency of supervision sessions, most studies reported weekly sessions [ 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 41 , 42 ], and the total number varied considerably from 3 [ 35 ] to 78 sessions [ 31 ]. Three studies did not describe the supervision frequency [ 33 , 36 , 45 ], and one singled out one supervision session only [ 44 ] (recommendation to “Describe how the study is conducted”).

Interventions

Whereas different forms of feedback or multiple-component supervision interventions were commonly studied, active interventions such as role play were seldom used [ 37 , 39 , 40 ]. Three studies did not describe the interventions used within supervision [ 35 , 44 , 45 ] (recommendation to “Investigate active supervision methods”). Four supervisions used a form of live intervention [ 36 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], and the remainder conducted supervision face-to-face. All but five studies [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 44 , 45 ] investigated some form of technological support.

The following sections describe the methodologies used in the studies, which is why all 19 publications are now referred to (Table  2 ). Five were randomized controlled trials (RCTs [ 32 , 34 , 38 , 42 , 43 ];), and one was a cluster-RCT [ 34 ]. In addition to cohort designs [ 31 , 44 ], cross-sectional designs were common [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 45 , 48 , 49 ]. Only in three publications was follow-up data collected [ 33 , 38 , 42 ]. Most studies covering satisfaction with supervision included one assessment time, usually post-intervention [ 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 48 , 49 ].

The assessments of the methodological quality are presented in Table  2 . The total methodological quality score was between 9 and 11 in six publications [ 32 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 49 ], between 12 and 13 in eight publications (score of 12–12 [ 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 45 , 49 ];), and between 14 and 15 in five of the 19 publications [ 37 , 39 , 40 , 44 , 47 ], with a lower score indicating a lower risk of a threat to the methodological quality. On an item level, most problems referred to the selection of participants, the control of confounders, and other bias such as allegiance bias (Fig.  2 ; recommendation to “Conduct methodologically stringent empirical studies”).

Methodological quality of the included studies. Lower risk … lower possible threats to methodological quality , sum score of 9–11 (range 5–15); medium risk … 12–13; higher risk … 14–15; e.g., 16 studies with higher risk of threats regarding selection of participant issues

Effects of clinical supervision

The most consistent result refers to the high acceptance, satisfaction and the perceived helpfulness of supervision by supervisees [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 48 , 49 ]. Further, the therapeutic relationship [ 31 , 32 , 43 , 44 , 45 ], and therapeutic competence seem to benefit from supervision [ 37 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 43 ]. On the other hand, non-significant findings [ 34 , 38 ], small effects [ 31 , 44 , 45 ] and relevant alternative explanations [ 32 , 33 , 43 , 46 ] hamper proper conclusions (see Fig.  3 ).

Supervision outcomes and methodological quality of the respective studies. In relation to the methodological quality; e.g., 2 studies with medium and 1 study with higher risk of possible threats to methodological quality investigated the supervisory relationship

Whereas most publications did not describe negative or unexpected effects of supervision, two mentioned them without further specification [ 31 , 42 ], two referred to unwanted effects as being unrelated to the outcome [ 33 , 38 ], and three described limits to therapists’ cognitive capacity and perceived anxiety or stress during supervision [ 39 , 48 , 49 ] (recommendation to “Investigate diverse positive and negative supervision outcomes aside from acceptance”).

The aim of the present study was to systematically review the status and quality of the current empirical literature on clinical supervision and, based on the review findings, to draw conclusions for future studies. The current review identified 19 publications referring to 15 empirical studies on the status of clinical supervision. Despite using wide inclusion criteria, it is remarkable that only such a small number of studies could be included. In contrast to former reviews, our study was conducted systematically according to current guidelines, using a reproducible methodology and concise reporting. Compared to previous reviews, it was not limited to psychotherapeutic approaches or study designs.

Regarding the psychotherapeutic approaches of the supervisees, most interventions had a CBT background, which still documents a research gap in studies on clinical supervision between CBT and other therapeutic approaches.

Aside from psychotherapy approaches, the meta-theoretical perspective of competency-based supervision, as proposed by the American Psychological Association [ 8 ], provides a more integrative and broader view. Their supervision guidelines involve seven key domains central to good-quality supervision, from supervisor competencies to diversity or ethical issues. Importantly, they describe supervision to be science-informed, which again underlines the importance of supervisors and supervisees to keep their evidence-based knowledge and skills up-to-date during profession-long learning.

Considering the conduction of supervision, face-to-face supervision was prevalent, but technological support was common as well, at least in published empirical studies. A variety of interventions was used, including less active ones such as case discussions and coaching, as well as more active ones such as feedback on patient outcomes or supervisee performance. It is clearly positive that active interventions (such as coaching and feedback) were implemented and evaluated because they have proven useful in active learning and therapist training [ 50 ]. Nevertheless, even more active methods, such as exercise or role play, were an exception [ 23 ]. Furthermore, it remains unclear which interventions are helpful in profession-long learning and maintenance of expertise [ 21 , 23 ]. We found that central supervision characteristics, such as the training of supervisors or the manual used for supervision, were not described consistently. Although a detailed description of how studies were conducted seems intuitive, it is surprising that reporting guidelines are not referred to consistently.

Concerning design characteristics, most studies were uncontrolled or used small samples. Further constraints were associated with the lack of follow-up data and major inconsistencies in the evaluation of negative effects. Although external observers, which were only sometimes independent, were used, almost half of the studies relied exclusively on self-reported questionnaires. Another problem was that the heterogeneity in the designs and instruments hampered the quantitative summary of results. Methodological quality has been criticized in supervision research for years (e.g. [ 16 , 17 ],), and inconclusive findings or relevant alternative explanations additionally impeded firm conclusions on supervision effects. Regarding the effects of clinical supervision, the review documents that supervision research clearly lags behind psychotherapy research in general; that is, we still have limited evidence on supervision effects, especially those regarding patient benefits [ 10 ], and we continue to search for active supervision ingredients [ 51 ].

Acceptance and satisfaction are crucial prerequisites for supervision effects, and they were the variables most frequently investigated. Although positive results in these domains may be considered stable [ 13 ], satisfaction may not be confused with effectiveness. Taken from health care-related conceptualizations [ 52 ], subjective satisfaction may depend on a number of variables, such as mutual expectations, communication, the supervisory relationship, the access to supervision or financial strains. In this sense, satisfaction is distinct from learning and competence development. Other important outcomes of supervision, such as the therapeutic relationship and competencies, treatment integrity, patient symptoms or unwanted effects, clearly need further investigation [ 10 , 21 ]. Other ideas include considering not only the supervisory relationship but also supervisory expectations as important process variables across psychotherapeutic approaches [ 13 ].

Limitations

We constructed a short tool for rating methodological quality, which enabled comparisons between the diverse designs of the studies included. Although inter-rater reliability was high, it lacks comparability with other reviews. Due to a stricter operationalization of the inclusion criteria, six studies were included in our previous scoping review [ 23 ], and three were included in another current review [ 14 ] that were not part of the current systematic review. More specifically, one study was not located via our search strategy, and the other publications did not describe explicitly if the patients were adults. As the excluded publications were mainly referring to CBT supervision, it generally reflects the stronger evidence-base of CBT that has its roots in basic research. Since the review aimed to illustrate the status and quality of supervision research, we did not restrict it to specific designs, but mapped the status quo. This necessarily increased heterogeneity, and especially regarding supervision effects, it limited the possibility to draw clear-cut conclusions or to combine the results statistically. Differences in the results of reviews may result not only from methodological aspects but also from diversity in the primary studies, which may be addressed only by better supervision research [ 14 ].

The review provides a variety of starting points for future research. The recommendations derived mainly refer to the replicability of research (i.e., to conduct methodologically stringent empirical studies, and to include positive and negative supervision outcomes). Taking a competency-based view, the following are examples of significant foci of both future practice and supervision research [ 23 , 53 , 54 ]:

Define, review and continuously develop supervisor competencies.

Include active methods, live feedback and video-based supervision.

Enhance the deliberate commitment to ethical standards to protect patients.

Positively value and include scientific knowledge and progress.

Foster profession-long learning of supervisees and supervisors.

Logistics may be an important issue in supervision research. Therefore, if large-scale quantitative studies are difficult to conduct or fund, methodologically sound pragmatic trials [ 3 ] and experimental studies may be feasible alternatives. Most of the results still speak to the lack of scientific rigor in supervision research. Thus, we consider competency-based supervision and research investigating the essential components of supervision as the major goals for future supervision research and practice.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the published article.

Abbreviations

Cognitive-behavioral therapy

Dialectical behavioral therapy

Motivational interviewing

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

International prospective register of systematic reviews

Problem solving treatment

Randomized controlled trial

• Supervision

Falender CA, Shafranske EP. Supervision essentials for the practice of competency-based supervision. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Goodyear RK, Lichtenberg J, Hutman H, Overland E, Bedi R, Christiani K, et al. A global portrait of counselling psychologists’ characteristics, perspectives, and professional behaviors. Couns Psychol Q. 2016;29(2):115–38.

Article   Google Scholar  

Owen J. Supervisory processes in the training of psychotherapists: introduction to the special section. Psychotherapy. 2015;52(2):151–2.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Falender CA, Shafranske EP. Competence in competency-based supervision practice: construct and application. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2007;38(3):232–40.

Falender CA, Cornish JAE, Goodyear R, Hatcher R, Kaslow NJ, Leventhal G, et al. Defining competencies in psychology supervision: a consensus statement. J Clin Psychol. 2004;60(7):771–85.

Milne DL, Watkins CE. Defining and understanding clinical supervision: a functional approach. In: Watkins CE, Milne DL, editors. The Wiley international handbook of clinical supervision. Chichester: Wiley; 2014. p. 3–19.

Google Scholar  

Bernard JM, Goodyear RK. Fundamentals of clinical supervision., 3rd ed. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon; 2004.

American Psychological Association. Guidelines for clinical supervision in health service psychology. Am Psychol. 2015;70(1):33–46.

International Society for Coaching Psychology. https://www.isfcp.info/what-is-coaching-psychology/ . Accessed 19 June 2019.

Hill CE, Knox S. Training and supervision in psychotherapy. In: Lambert MJ, editor. Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. 6. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013. p. 775–812.

Milne DL, James I. A systematic review of effective cognitive-behavioral supervision. Br J Clin Psychol. 2000;39(2):111–27.

Wheeler S, Richards K. The impact of clinical supervision on counsellors and therapists, their practice and their clients. A systematic review of the literature. Couns Psychother Res. 2007;7(1):54–65.

Watkins CE. How does psychotherapy supervision work? Contributions of connection, conception, allegiance, alignment, and action. J Psychother Integr. 2017;27(2):201.

Alfonsson S, Parling T, Spännargård Å, Andersson G, Lundgren T. The effects of clinical supervision on supervisees and patients in cognitive behavioral therapy: a systematic review. Cogn Behav Ther. 2017;47(3):1–23.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ellis MV, Krengel M, Ladany N, Schult D. Clinical supervision research from 1981 to 1993: a methodological critique. J Couns Psychol. 1996;43(1):35–50.

Freitas GJ. The impact of psychotherapy supervision on client outcome: a critical examination of 2 decades of research. Psychotherapy. 2002;39(4):354–67.

Rakovshik SG, McManus F. Establishing evidence-based training in cognitive behavioral therapy: a review of current empirical findings and theoretical guidance. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30(5):496–516.

Reiser RP, Milne DL. A systematic review and reformulation of outcome evaluation in clinical supervision: applying the fidelity framework. Train Educ Prof Psychol. 2014;8(3):149–57.

Auckenthaler A. Supervision of psychotherapy: claims, facts, trends. [supervision von Psychotherapie: Behauptungen-Fakten-trends.]. Psychotherapeut. 1999;44(3):139–52.

Strauß B, Wheeler S, Nodop S. Clinical supervision. Review of the state of research. [Klinische supervision: Überblick Über den stand der Forschung.]. Psychotherapeut. 2010;55(6):455–64.

Alfonsson S, Spännargård Å, Parling T, Andersson G, Lundgren T. The effects of clinical supervision on supervisees and patients in cognitive-behavioral therapy: a study protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–6.

Kühne F, Maas J, Wiesenthal S, Weck F. Supervision in behavioral therapy. A scoping review for identification of research objectives. [Supervision in der Verhaltenstherapie. Ein Scoping Review zur Identifikation von Forschungszielen.]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie. 2017;46(2):73–82.

Muse K, McManus F. A systematic review of methods for assessing competence in cognitive–behavioural therapy. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(3):484–99.

Roth AD, Pilling S, Turner J. Therapist training and supervision in clinical trials: implications for clinical practice. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2010;38(3):291–302.

Perepletchikova F, Treat TA, Kazdin AE. Treatment integrity in psychotherapy research: analysis of the studies and examination of the associated factors. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007;75(6):829–41.

Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 (updated March 2011). Cochrane Collab; 2011.

CASP Checklist. http://www.casp-uk.net/checklists . Accessed 08 Jan 2018.

Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins J. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(3):666–76.

Wirtz MA, Caspar F. Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2002.

Anderson T, Crowley MEJ, Patterson CL, Heckman BD. The influence of supervision on manual adherence and therapeutic processes. J Clin Psychol. 2012;68(9):972–88.

Bambling M, King R, Raue P, Schweitzer R, Lambert W. Clinical supervision: its influence on client-rated working alliance and client symptom reduction in the brief treatment of major depression. Psychother Res. 2006;16(3):317–31.

Davidson KM, Rankin ML, Begley A, Lloyd S, Barry SJE, McSkimming P, et al. Assessing patient progress in psychological therapy through feedback in supervision: the memos randomized controlled trial (measuring and monitoring clinical outcomes in supervision: memos). Behav Cogn Psychother. 2017;45(3):209–24.

Grossl AB, Reese RJ, Norsworthy LA, Hopkins NB. Client feedback data in supervision: effects on supervision and outcome. Train Educ Prof Psychol. 2014;8(3):182–8.

Hiltunen AJ, Kocys E, Perrin-Wallqvist R. Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy: an evaluation of therapies provided by trainees at a university psychotherapy training center. Psych J. 2013;2(2):101–12.

Locke LD, McCollum EE. Clients’ views of live supervision and satisfaction with therapy. J Marital Fam Ther. 2001;27(1):129–33.

Lu W, Yanos PT, Gottlieb JD, Duva SM, Silverstein SM, Xie H, et al. Use of fidelity assessments to train clinicians in the CBT for PTSD program for clients with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63(8):785–92.

Martino S, Paris M, Anez L, Nich C, Canning-Ball M, Hunkele K, et al. The effectiveness and cost of clinical supervision for motivational interviewing: a randomized controlled trial. J Subst Abus Treat. 2016;68:11–23.

Milne DL, Reiser RP, Cliffe T, Breese L, Boon A, Raine R, et al. A qualitative comparison of cognitive-behavioural and evidence-based clinical supervision. Cogn Behav Ther. 2011;4(4):152–66.

Ng RMK, Cheung MSM. Supervision of cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis: a Hong Kong experience. Hong Kong J Psychiatry. 2007;17(4):124–30.

Rizvi SL, Yu J, Geisser S, Finnegan D. The use of “bug-in-the-eye” live supervision for training in dialectical behavior therapy: a case study. Clin Case Stud. 2016;15(3):243–58.

Smith JL, Carpenter KM, Amrhein PC, Brooks AC, Levin D, Schreiber EA, et al. Training substance abuse clinicians in motivational interviewing using live supervision via teleconferencing. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012;80(3):450–64.

Weck F, Jakob M, Neng JMB, Hofling V, Grikscheit F, Bohus M. The effects of bug-in-the-eye supervision on therapeutic alliance and therapist competence in cognitive-behavioural therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2016;23(5):386–96.

Willutzki U, Tönnies B, Meyer F. Psychotherapy supervision and the therapeutic alliance-A process study. [Psychotherapiesupervision und die therapeutische Beziehung-Eine Prozessstudie.]. Verhaltenstherapie & Psychosoziale Praxis. 2005;37(3):507–16.

Zarbock G, Drews M, Bodansky A, Dahme B. The evaluation of supervision: construction of brief questionnaires for the supervisor and the supervisee. Psychother Res. 2009;19(2):194–204.

Anderson T, Crowley MEJ, Binder JL, Heckman BD, Patterson CL. Does the supervisor's teaching style influence the supervisee's learning prescribed techniques? Psychother Res. 2017;27(5):549–57.

Milne DL, Reiser RP, Cliffe T. An N=1 evaluation of enhanced CBT supervision. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2013;41(2):210–20.

Jakob M, Weck F, Bohus M. Live supervision: From the one-way mirror to video-based online-supervision. [Live-Supervision: Vom Einwegspiegel zur videobasierten Online-Supervision.]. Verhaltenstherapie. 2013;23(3):170–80.

Jakob M, Weck F, Schornick M, Krause T, Bohus M. When the supervisor is watching. Qualitative analysis of the acceptance of live supervision. [Wenn der supervisor zuschaut: qualitative analyse der Akzeptanz von live-supervision.]. Psychotherapeut. 2015;60(3):210–5.

Beidas RS, Kendall PC. Training therapists in evidence-based practice: a critical review of studies from a systems-contextual perspective. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2010;17(1):1–30.

Rakovshik SG, McManus F, Vazquez-Montes M, Muse K, Ougrin D. Is supervision necessary? Examining the effects of internet-based CBT training with and without supervision. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016;84(3):191–9.

Brettschneider C, Lühmann D, Raspe H-H. Der Stellenwert von patient-reported outcomes (PRO) im Kontext von health technology assessment (HTA): DIMDI; 2010.

Gonsalvez CJ, Calvert FL. Competency-based models of supervision: principles and applications. Promises Chall Aust Psychologist. 2014;49(4):200–8.

Falender CA. Clinical supervision-the missing ingredient. Am Psychol. 2018;73(9):1240.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the two reviewers for their valuable and important contributions to a former version of the manuscript.

We greatfully acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the Open Access Publishing Fund of the University of Potsdam.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany

Franziska Kühne, Jana Maas, Sophia Wiesenthal & Florian Weck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FK conceptualized the research goal, developed the design and the methodology, provided the resources needed for the study, supervised and managed the research, collected the data/evidence, analyzed, synthesized and visualized the study data and wrote the initial draft of the paper. JM and SW aided in collecting the data, in analyzing, synthesizing and visualizing the data and revised the work. FW took part in the conceptualization process, the coordination of the responsibilities, the validation and reviewing process and supervised the research activity. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franziska Kühne .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kühne, F., Maas, J., Wiesenthal, S. et al. Empirical research in clinical supervision: a systematic review and suggestions for future studies. BMC Psychol 7 , 54 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0327-7

Download citation

Received : 04 March 2019

Accepted : 18 July 2019

Published : 22 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0327-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical supervision
• Systematic review
• Evidence-based psychotherapy

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 24 February 2022

Systematic literature review of schizophrenia clinical practice guidelines on acute and maintenance management with antipsychotics

• Christoph U. Correll   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7254-5646 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Amber Martin 4 ,
• Charmi Patel 5 ,
• Carmela Benson 5 ,
• Rebecca Goulding 6 ,
• Jennifer Kern-Sliwa 5 ,
• Kruti Joshi 5 ,
• Emma Schiller 4 &
• Edward Kim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8247-6675 7  

Schizophrenia volume  8 , Article number:  5 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

15k Accesses

51 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Schizophrenia

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) translate evidence into recommendations to improve patient care and outcomes. To provide an overview of schizophrenia CPGs, we conducted a systematic literature review of English-language CPGs and synthesized current recommendations for the acute and maintenance management with antipsychotics. Searches for schizophrenia CPGs were conducted in MEDLINE/Embase from 1/1/2004–12/19/2019 and in guideline websites until 06/01/2020. Of 19 CPGs, 17 (89.5%) commented on first-episode schizophrenia (FES), with all recommending antipsychotic monotherapy, but without agreement on preferred antipsychotic. Of 18 CPGs commenting on maintenance therapy, 10 (55.6%) made no recommendations on the appropriate maximum duration of maintenance therapy, noting instead individualization of care. Eighteen (94.7%) CPGs commented on long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs), mainly in cases of nonadherence (77.8%), maintenance care (72.2%), or patient preference (66.7%), with 5 (27.8%) CPGs recommending LAIs for FES. For treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 15/15 CPGs recommended clozapine. Only 7/19 (38.8%) CPGs included a treatment algorithm.

Similar content being viewed by others

Adults who microdose psychedelics report health related motivations and lower levels of anxiety and depression compared to non-microdosers

Psilocybin microdosers demonstrate greater observed improvements in mood and mental health at one month relative to non-microdosing controls

The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence

Introduction.

Schizophrenia is an often debilitating, chronic, and relapsing mental disorder with complex symptomology that manifests as a combination of positive, negative, and/or cognitive features 1 , 2 , 3 . Standard management of schizophrenia includes the use of antipsychotic medications to help control acute psychotic episodes 4 and prevent relapses 5 , 6 , whereas maintenance therapy is used in the long term after patients have been stabilized 7 , 8 , 9 . Two main classes of drugs—first- and second-generation antipsychotics (FGA and SGA)—are used to treat schizophrenia 10 . SGAs are favored due to the lower rates of adverse effects, such as extrapyramidal effects, tardive dyskinesia, and relapse 11 . However, pharmacologic treatment for schizophrenia is complicated because nonadherence is prevalent, and is a major risk factor for relapse 9 and poor overall outcomes 12 . The use of long-acting injectable (LAI) versions of antipsychotics aims to limit nonadherence-related relapses and poor outcomes 13 .

Patient treatment pathways and treatment choices are determined based on illness acuity/severity, past treatment response and tolerability, as well as balancing medication efficacy and adverse effect profiles in the context of patient preferences and adherence patterns 14 , 15 . Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) serve to inform clinicians with recommendations that reflect current evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs and, less so, epidemiologic studies, as well as clinical experience, with the goal of providing a framework and road-map for treatment decisions that will improve quality of care and achieve better patients outcomes. The use of clinical algorithms or other decision trees in CPGs may improve the ease of implementation of the evidence in clinical practice 16 . While CPGs are an important tool for mental health professionals, they have not been updated on a regular basis like they have been in other areas of medicine, such as in oncology. In the absence of current information, other governing bodies, healthcare systems, and hospitals have developed their own CPGs regarding the treatment of schizophrenia, and many of these have been recently updated 17 , 18 , 19 . As such, it is important to assess the latest guidelines to be aware of the changes resulting from consideration of updated evidence that informed the treatment recommendations. Since CPGs are comprehensive and include the diagnosis as well as the pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of individuals with schizophrenia, a detailed comparative review of all aspects of CPGs for schizophrenia would have been too broad a review topic. Further, despite ongoing efforts to broaden the pharmacologic tools for the treatment of schizophrenia 20 , antipsychotics remain the cornerstone of schizophrenia management 8 , 21 . Therefore, a focused review of guideline recommendations for the management of schizophrenia with antipsychotics would serve to provide clinicians with relevant information for treatment decisions.

To provide an updated overview of United States (US) national and English language international guidelines for the management of schizophrenia, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify CPGs and synthesize current recommendations for pharmacological management with antipsychotics in the acute and maintenance phases of schizophrenia.

Systematic searches for the SLR yielded 1253 hits from the electronic literature databases. After removal of duplicate references, 1127 individual articles were screened at the title and abstract level. Of these, 58 publications were deemed eligible for screening at the full-text level, from which 19 were ultimately included in the SLR. Website searches of relevant organizations yielded 10 additional records, and an additional three records were identified by the state-by-state searches. Altogether, this process resulted in 32 records identified for inclusion in the SLR. Of the 32 sources, 19 primary CPGs, published/issued between 2004 and 2020, were selected for extraction, as illustrated in the PRISMA diagram (Fig. 1 ). While the most recent APA guideline was identified and available for download in 2020, the reference to cite in the document indicates a publication date of 2021.

SLR systematic literature review.

Of the 19 included CPGs (Table 1 ), three had an international focus (from the following organizations: International College of Neuropsychopharmacology [CINP] 22 , United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] 23 , and World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry [WFSBP] 24 , 25 , 26 ); seven originated from the US; 17 , 18 , 19 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 three were from the United Kingdom (British Association for Psychopharmacology [BAP] 33 , the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] 34 , and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [SIGN] 35 ); and one guideline each was from Singapore 36 , the Polish Psychiatric Association (PPA) 37 , 38 , the Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) 14 , the Royal Australia/New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) 39 , the Association Française de Psychiatrie Biologique et de Neuropsychopharmacologie (AFPBN) from France 40 , and Italy 41 . Fourteen CPGs (74%) recommended treatment with specific antipsychotics and 18 (95%) included recommendations for the use of LAIs, while just seven included a treatment algorithm Table 2 ). The AGREE II assessment resulted in the highest score across the CPGs domains for NICE 34 followed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) guidelines 17 . The CPA 14 , BAP 33 , and SIGN 35 CPGs also scored well across domains.

Acute therapy

Seventeen CPGs (89.5%) provided treatment recommendations for patients experiencing a first schizophrenia episode 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 41 , but the depth and focus of the information varied greatly (Supplementary Table 1 ). In some CPGs, information on treatment of a first schizophrenia episode was limited or grouped with information on treating any acute episode, such as in the CPGs from CINP 22 , AFPBN 40 , New Jersey Division of Mental Health Services (NJDMHS) 32 , the APA 17 , and the PPA 37 , 38 , while the others provided more detailed information specific to patients experiencing a first schizophrenia episode 14 , 18 , 19 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 41 . The American Association of Community Psychiatrists (AACP) Clinical Tips did not provide any information on the treatment of schizophrenia patients with a first episode 29 .

There was little agreement among CPGs regarding the preferred antipsychotic for a first schizophrenia episode. However, there was strong consensus on antipsychotic monotherapy and that lower doses are generally recommended due to better treatment response and greater adverse effect sensitivity. Some guidelines recommended SGAs over FGAs when treating a first-episode schizophrenia patient (RANZCP 39 , Texas Medication Algorithm Project [TMAP] 28 , Oregon Health Authority 19 ), one recommended starting patients on an FGA (UNHCR 23 ), and others stated specifically that there was no evidence of any difference in efficacy between FGAs and SGAs (WFSBP 24 , CPA 14 , SIGN 35 , APA 17 , Singapore guidelines 36 ), or did not make any recommendation (CINP 22 , Italian guidelines 41 , NICE 34 , NJDMHS 32 , Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team [PORT] 30 , 31 ). The BAP 33 and WFBSP 24 noted that while there was probably no difference between FGAs and SGAs in efficacy, some SGAs (olanzapine, amisulpride, and risperidone) may perform better than some FGAs. The Schizophrenia PORT recommendations noted that while there seemed to be no differences between SGAs and FGAs in short-term studies (≤12 weeks), longer studies (one to two years) suggested that SGAs may provide benefits in terms of longer times to relapse and discontinuation rates 30 , 31 . The AFPBN guidelines 40 and Florida Medicaid Program guidelines 18 , which both focus on use of LAI antipsychotics, both recommended an SGA-LAI for patients experiencing a first schizophrenia episode. A caveat in most CPGs was that physicians and their patients should discuss decisions about the choice of antipsychotic and that the choice should consider individual patient factors/preferences, risk of adverse and metabolic effects, and symptom patterns 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 41 .

Most CPGs recommended switching to a different monotherapy if the initial antipsychotic was not effective or not well tolerated after an adequate antipsychotic trial at an appropriate dose 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 39 . For patients initially treated with an FGA, the UNHCR recommended switching to an SGA (olanzapine or risperidone) 23 . Guidance on response to treatment varied in the measures used but typically required at least a 20% improvement in symptoms (i.e. reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores) from pre-treatment levels.

Several CPGs contained recommendations on the duration of antipsychotic therapy after a first schizophrenia episode. The NJDMHS guidelines 32 recommended nine to 12 months; CINP 22 recommended at least one year; CPA 14 recommended at least 18 months; WFSBP 25 , the Italian guidelines 41 , and NICE 34 recommended 1 to 2 years; and the RANZCP 39 , BAP 33 , and SIGN 35 recommended at least 2 years. The APA 17 and TMAP 28 recommended continuing antipsychotic treatment after resolution of first-episode symptoms but did not recommend a specific length of therapy.

Twelve guidelines 14 , 18 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 (63.2%) discussed the treatment of subsequent/multiple episodes of schizophrenia (i.e., following relapse). These CPGs noted that the considerations guiding the choice of antipsychotic for subsequent/multiple episodes were similar to those for a first episode, factoring in prior patient treatment response, adverse effect patterns and adherence. The CPGs also noted that response to treatment may be lower and require higher doses to achieve a response than for first-episode schizophrenia, that a different antipsychotic than used to treat the first episode may be needed, and that a switch to an LAI is an option.

Several CPGs provided recommendations for patients with specific clinical features (Supplementary Table 1 ). The most frequently discussed group of clinical features was negative symptoms, with recommendations provided in the CINP 22 , UNHCR 23 , WFSBP 24 , AFPBN 40 , SIGN 35 , BAP 33 , APA 17 , and NJDMHS guidelines; 32 negative symptoms were the sole focus of the guidelines from the PPA 37 , 38 . The guidelines noted that due to limited evidence in patients with predominantly negative symptoms, there was no clear benefit for any strategy, but that options included SGAs (especially amisulpride) rather than FGAs (WFSBP 24 , CINP 22 , AFPBN 40 , SIGN 35 , NJDMHS 32 , PPA 37 , 38 ), and addition of an antidepressant (WFSBP 24 , UNHCR 23 , SIGN 35 , NJDMHS 32 ) or lamotrigine (SIGN 35 ), or switching to another SGA (NJDMHS 32 ) or clozapine (NJDMHS 32 ). The PPA guidelines 37 , 38 stated that the use of clozapine or adding an antidepressant or other medication class was not supported by evidence, but recommended the SGA cariprazine for patients with predominant and persistent negative symptoms, and other SGAs for those with full-spectrum negative symptoms. However, the BAP 33 stated that no recommendations can be made for any of these strategies because of the quality and paucity of the available evidence.

Some of the CPGs also discussed treatment of other clinical features to a limited degree, including depressive symptoms (CINP 22 , UNHCR 23 , CPA 14 , APA 17 , and NJDMHS 32 ), cognitive dysfunction (CINP 22 , UNHCR 23 , WFSBP 24 , AFPBN 40 , SIGN 35 , BAP 33 , and NJDMHS 32 ), persistent aggression (CINP 22 , WFSBP 24 , CPA 14 , AFPBN 40 , NICE 34 , SIGN 35 , BAP 33 , and NJDMHS 32 ), and comorbid psychiatric diagnoses (CINP 22 , RANZCP 39 , BAP 33 , APA 17 , and NJDMHS 32 ).

Fifteen CPGs (78.9%) discussed treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS); all defined it as persistent, predominantly positive symptoms after two adequate antipsychotic trials; clozapine was the unanimous first choice 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 . However, the UNHCR guidelines 23 , which included recommendations for treatment of refugees, noted that clozapine is only a reasonable choice in regions where white blood cell monitoring and specialist supervision are available, otherwise, risperidone or olanzapine are alternatives if they had not been used in the previous treatment regimen.

There were few options for patients who are resistant to clozapine therapy, and evidence supporting these options was limited. The CPA guidelines 14 therefore stated that no recommendation can be given due to inadequate evidence. Other CPGs discussed options (but noted there was limited supporting evidence), such as switching to olanzapine or risperidone (WFSBP 24 , TMAP 28 ), adding a second antipsychotic to clozapine (CINP 22 , NICE 34 , TMAP 28 , BAP 33 , Florida Medicaid Program 18 , Oregon Health Authority 19 , RANZCP 39 ), adding lamotrigine or topiramate to clozapine (CINP 22 , Florida Medicaid Program 18 ), combination therapy with two non-clozapine antipsychotics (Florida Medicaid Program 18 , NJDMHS 32 ), and high-dose non-clozapine antipsychotic therapy (BAP 33 , SIGN 35 ). Electroconvulsive therapy was noted as a last resort for patients who did not respond to any pharmacologic therapy, including clozapine, by 10 CPGs 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 39 .

Maintenance therapy

Fifteen CPGs (78.9%) discussed maintenance therapy to various degrees via dedicated sections or statements, while three others referred only to maintenance doses by antipsychotic agent 18 , 23 , 29 without accompanying recommendations (Supplementary Table 2 ). Only the Italian guideline provided no reference or comments on maintenance treatment. The CINP 22 , WFSBP 25 , RANZCP 39 , and Schizophrenia PORT 30 , 31 recommended keeping patients on the same antipsychotic and at the same dose on which they had achieved remission. Several CPGs recommended maintenance therapy at the lowest effective dose (NJDMHS 32 , APA 17 , Singapore guidelines 36 , and TMAP 28 ). The CPA 14 and SIGN 35 defined the lower dose as 300–400 mg chlorpromazine equivalents or 4–6 mg risperidone equivalents, and the Singapore guidelines 36 stated that the lower dose should not be less than half the original dose. TMAP 28 stated that given the relapsing nature of schizophrenia, the maintenance dose should often be close to the original dose. While SIGN 35 recommended that patients remain on the same antipsychotic that provided remission, these guidelines also stated that maintenance with amisulpride, olanzapine, or risperidone was preferred, and that chlorpromazine and other low-potency FGAs were also suitable. The BAP 33 recommended that the current regimen be optimized before any dose reduction or switch to another antipsychotic occurs. Several CPGs recommended LAIs as an option for maintenance therapy (see next section).

Altogether, 10/18 (55.5%) CPGs made no recommendations on the appropriate duration of maintenance therapy, noting instead that each patient should be considered individually. Other CPGs made specific recommendations: Both the Both BAP 33 and SIGN 35 guidelines suggested a minimum of 2 years, the NJDMHS guidelines 32 recommended 2–3 years; the WFSBP 25 recommended 2–5 years for patients who have had one relapse and more than 5 years for those who have had multiple relapses; the RANZCP 39 and the CPA 14 recommended 2–5 years; and the CINP 22 recommended that maintenance therapy last at least 6 years for patients who have had multiple episodes. The TMAP was the only CPG to recommend that maintenance therapy be continued indefinitely 28 .

Recommendations on the use of LAIs

All CPGs except the one from Italy (94.7%) discussed the use of LAIs for patients with schizophrenia to some extent. As shown in Table 3 , among the 18 CPGs, LAIs were primarily recommended in 14 CPGs (77.8%) for patients who are non-adherent to other antipsychotic administration routes (CINP 22 , UNHCR 23 , RANZCP 39 , PPA 37 , 38 , Singapore guidelines 36 , NICE 34 , SIGN 35 , BAP 33 , APA 17 , TMAP 28 , NJDMHS 32 , AACP 29 , Oregon Health Authority 19 , Florida Medicaid Program 18 ). Twelve CPGs (66.7%) also noted that LAIs should be prescribed based on patient preference (RANZCP 39 , CPA 14 , AFPBN 40 , Singapore guidelines 36 , NICE 34 , SIGN 35 , BAP 33 , APA 17 , Schizophrenia PORT 30 , 31 , AACP 29 , Oregon Health Authority 19 , Florida Medicaid Program 18 ).

Thirteen CPGs (72.2%) recommended LAIs as maintenance therapy 18 , 19 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 . While five CPGs (27.8%), i.e., AFPBN 40 , RANZCP 39 , TMAP 28 , NJDMHS 32 , and the Florida Medicaid Program 18 recommended LAIs specifically for patients experiencing a first episode. While the CPA 14 did not make any recommendations regarding when LAIs should be used, they discussed recent evidence supporting their use earlier in treatment. Five guidelines (27.8%, i.e., Singapore 36 , NICE 34 , SIGN 35 , BAP 33 , and Schizophrenia PORT 30 , 31 ) noted that evidence around LAIs was not sufficient to support recommending their use for first-episode patients. The AFPBN guidelines 40 also stated that LAIs (SGAs as first-line and FGAs as second-line treatment) should be more frequently considered for maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. Four CPGs (22.2%, i.e., CINP 22 , UNHCR 23 , Italian guidelines 41 , PPA guidelines 37 , 38 ) did not specify when LAIs should be used. The AACP guidelines 29 , which evaluated only LAIs, recommended expanding their use beyond treatment for nonadherence, suggesting that LAIs may offer a more convenient mode of administration or potentially address other clinical and social challenges, as well as provide more consistent plasma levels.

Treatment algorithms

Only Seven CPGs (36.8%) included an algorithm as part of the treatment recommendations. These included decision trees or flow diagrams that map out initial therapy, durations for assessing response, and treatment options in cases of non-response. However, none of these guidelines defined how to measure response, a theme that also extended to guidelines that did not include treatment algorithms. Four of the seven guidelines with algorithms recommended specific antipsychotic agents, while the remaining three referred only to the antipsychotic class.

LAIs were not consistently incorporated in treatment algorithms and in six CPGs were treated as a separate category of medicine reserved for patients with adherence issues or a preference for the route of administration. The only exception was the Florida Medicaid Program 18 , which recommended offering LAIs after oral antipsychotic stabilization even to patients who are at that point adherent to oral antipsychotics.

Benefits and harms

The need to balance the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics was mentioned by all CPGs as a basic treatment paradigm.

Ten CPGs provided conclusions on benefits of antipsychotic therapy. The APA 17 and the BAP 33 guidelines stated that antipsychotic treatment can improve the positive and negative symptoms of psychosis and leads to remission of symptoms. These CPGs 17 , 33 as well as those from NICE 34 and CPA 14 stated that these treatment effects can also lead to improvements in quality of life (including quality-adjusted life years), improved functioning, and reduction in disability. The CPA 14 and APA 17 guidelines noted decreases in hospitalizations with antipsychotic therapy, and the APA guidelines 17 stated that long-term antipsychotic treatment can also reduce mortality. The UNHCR 23 and the Italian 41 guidelines noted that early intervention increased positive outcomes. The WFSBP 24 , AFPBN 40 , CPA 14 , BAP 33 , APA 17 , and NJDMHS 32 affirmed that relapse prevention is a benefit of continued/maintenance treatment.

Some CPGs (WFSBP 24 , Italian 41 , CPA 14 , and SIGN 35 ) noted that reduced risk for extrapyramidal adverse effects and treatment discontinuation were potential benefits of SGAs vs. FGAs.

The risk of adverse effects (e.g., extrapyramidal, metabolic, cardiovascular, and hormonal adverse effects, sedation, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome) was noted by all CPGs as the major potential harm of antipsychotic therapy 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 . These adverse effects are known to limit long-term treatment and adherence 24 .

This SLR of CPGs for the treatment of schizophrenia yielded 19 most updated versions of individual CPGs, published/issued between 2004 and 2020. Structuring our comparative review according to illness phase, antipsychotic type and formulation, response to antipsychotic treatment as well as benefits and harms, several areas of consistent recommendations emerged from this review (e.g., balancing risk and benefits of antipsychotics, preferring antipsychotic monotherapy; using clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia). On the other hand, other recommendations regarding other areas of antipsychotic treatment were mostly consistent (e.g., maintenance antipsychotic treatment for some time), somewhat inconsistent (e.g., differences in the management of first- vs multi-episode patients, type of antipsychotic, dose of antipsychotic maintenance treatment), or even contradictory (e.g., role of LAIs in first-episode schizophrenia patients).

Consistent with RCT evidence 43 , 44 , antipsychotic monotherapy was the treatment of choice for patients with first-episode schizophrenia in all CPGs, and all guidelines stated that a different single antipsychotic should be tried if the first is ineffective or intolerable. Recommendations were similar for multi-episode patients, but factored in prior patient treatment response, adverse effect patterns, and adherence. There was also broad consensus that the side-effect profile of antipsychotics is the most important consideration when making a decision on pharmacologic treatment, also reflecting meta-analytic evidence 4 , 5 , 10 . The risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (especially with FGAs) and metabolic effects (especially with SGAs) were noted as key considerations, which are also reflected in the literature as relevant concerns 4 , 45 , 46 , including for quality of life and treatment nonadherence 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 .

Largely consistent with the comparative meta-analytic evidence regarding the acute 4 , 51 , 52 and maintenance antipsychotic treatment 5 effects of schizophrenia, the majority of CPGs stated there was no difference in efficacy between SGAs and FGAs (WFSBP 24 , CPA 14 , SIGN 35 , APA 17 , and Singapore guidelines 36 ), or did not make any recommendations (CINP 22 , Italian guidelines 41 , NICE 34 , NJDMHS 32 , and Schizophrenia PORT 30 , 31 ); three CPGs (BAP 33 , WFBSP 24 , and Schizophrenia PORT 30 , 31 ) noted that SGAs may perform better than FGAs over the long term, consistent with a meta-analysis on this topic 53 .

The 12 CPGs that discussed treatment of subsequent/multiple episodes generally agreed on the factors guiding the choices of an antipsychotic, including that the decision may be more complicated and response may be lower than with a first episode, as described before 7 , 54 , 55 , 56 .

There was little consensus regarding maintenance therapy. Some CPGs recommended the same antipsychotic and dose that achieved remission (CINP 22 , WFSBP 25 , RANZCP 39 , and Schizophrenia PORT 30 , 31 ) and others recommended the lowest effective dose (NJDMHS 32 , APA 17 , Singapore guidelines 36 , TMAP 28 , CPA 14 , and SIGN 35 ). This inconsistency is likely based on insufficient data as well as conflicting results in existing meta-analyses on this topic 57 , 58 , 59 .

The 15 CPGs that discussed TRS all used the same definition for this condition, consistent with recent commendations 60 , and agreed that clozapine is the primary evidence-based treatment choice 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , reflecting the evidence base 61 , 62 , 63 . These CPGs also agreed that there are few options well supported by evidence for patients who do not respond to clozapine, with a recent meta-analysis of RCTs showing that electroconvulsive therapy augmentation may be the most evidence-based treatment option 64 .

One key gap in the treatment recommendations was how long patients should remain on antipsychotic therapy after a first episode or during maintenance therapy. While nine of the 17 CPGs discussing treatment of a first episode provided a recommended timeframe (varying from 1 to 2 years) 14 , 22 , 24 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 41 , the APA 17 and TMAP 28 recommended continuing antipsychotic treatment after resolution of first-episode symptoms but did not recommend a specific length of therapy. Similarly, six of the 18 CPGs discussing maintenance treatment recommended a specific duration of therapy (ranging from two to six years) 14 , 22 , 25 , 32 , 39 , while as many as 10 CPGs did not point to a firm end of the maintenance treatment, instead recommending individualized decisions. The CPGs not stating a definite endpoint or period of maintenance treatment after repeated schizophrenia episodes or even after a first episode of schizophrenia, reflects the different evidence types on which the recommendation is based. The RCT evidence ends after several years of maintenance treatment vs. discontinuation supporting ongoing antipsychotic treatment; however, naturalistic database studies do not indicate any time period after which one can safely discontinue maintenance antipsychotic care, even after a first schizophrenia episode 8 , 65 . In fact, stopping antipsychotics is associated not only with a substantially increased risk of hospitalization but also mortality 65 , 66 , 67 . In this sense, not stating an endpoint for antipsychotic maintenance therapy should not be taken as an implicit statement that antipsychotics should be discontinued at any time; data suggest the contrary.

A further gap exists regarding the most appropriate treatment of negative symptoms, such as anhedonia, amotivation, asociality, affective flattening, and alogia 1 , a long-standing challenge in the management of patients with schizophrenia. Negative symptoms often persist in patients after positive symptoms have resolved, or are the presenting feature in a substantial minority of patients 22 , 35 . Negative symptoms can also be secondary to pharmacotherapy 22 , 68 . Antipsychotics have been most successful in treating positive symptoms, and while eight of the CPGs provided some information on treatment of negative symptoms, the recommendations were generally limited 17 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 40 . Negative symptom management was a focus of the PPA guidelines, but the guidelines acknowledged that supporting evidence was limited, often due to the low number of patients with predominantly negative symptoms in clinical trials 37 , 38 . The Polish guidelines are also one of the more recently developed and included the newer antipsychotic cariprazine as a first-line option, which although being a point of differentiation from the other guidelines, this recommendation was based on RCT data 69 .

Another area in which more direction is needed is on the use of LAIs. While all but one of the 19 CPGs discussed this topic, the extent of information and recommendations for LAI use varied considerably. All CPGs categorized LAIs as an option to improve adherence to therapy or based on patient preference. However, 5/18 CPGs (27.8%) recommended the use of LAI early in treatment (at first episode: AFPBN 40 , RANZCP 39 , TMAP 28 , NJDMHS 32 , and Florida Medicaid Program 18 ) or across the entire illness course, while five others stated there was not sufficient evidence to recommend LAIs for these patients (Singapore 36 , NICE 34 , SIGN 35 , BAP 33 , and Schizophrenia PORT 30 , 31 ). The role of LAIs in first-episode schizophrenia was the only point where opposing recommendations were found across CPGs. This contradictory stance was not due to the incorporation of newer data suggesting benefits of LAIs in first episode and early-phase patients with schizophrenia 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 in the CPGs recommending LAI use in first-episode patients, as CPGs recommending LAI use were published between 2005 and 2020, while those opposing LAI use were published between 2011 and 2020. Only the Florida Medicaid CPG recommended LAIs as a first step equivalent to oral antipsychotics (OAP) after initial OAP response and tolerability, independent of nonadherence or other clinical variables. This guideline was also the only CPG to fully integrate LAI use in their clinical algorithm. The remaining six CPGs that included decision tress or treatment algorithms regarded LAIs as a separate paradigm of treatment reserved for nonadherence or patients preference rather than a routine treatment option to consider. While some CPGs provided fairly detailed information on the use of LAIs (AFPBN 40 , AACP 29 , Oregon Health Authority 19 , and Florida Medicaid Program 18 ), others mentioned them only in the context of adherence issues or patient preference. Notably, definitions of and means to determine nonadherence were not reported. One reason for this wide range of recommendations regarding the placement of LAIs in the treatment algorithm and clinical situations that prompt LAI use might be due to the fact that CPGs generally favor RCT evidence over evidence from other study designs. In the case of LAIs, there was a notable dissociation between consistent meta-analytic evidence of statistically significant superiority of LAIs vs OAPs in mirror-image 75 and cohort study designs 76 and non-significant advantages in RCTs 77 . Although patients in RCTs comparing LAIs vs OAPs were less severely ill and more adherent to OAPs 77 than in clinical care and although mirror-image and cohort studies arguably have greater external validity than RCTs 78 , CPGs generally disregard evidence from other study designs when RCT evidence exits. This narrow focus can lead to disregarding important additional data. Nevertheless, a most updated meta-analysis of all 3 study designs comparing LAIs with OAPs demonstrated consistent superiority of LAIs vs OAPs for hospitalization or relapse across all 3 designs 79 , which should lead to more uniform recommendations across CPGs in the future.

Only seven CPGs included treatment algorithms or flow charts to guide LAI treatment selection for patients with schizophrenia 17 , 18 , 19 , 24 , 29 , 35 , 40 . However, there was little commonality across algorithms beyond the guidance on LAIs mentioned above, as some listed specific treatments and conditions for antipsychotic switches, while others indicated that medication choice should be based on a patient’s preferences and responses, side effects, and in some cases, cost effectiveness. Since algorithms and flow charts facilitate the reception, adoption and implementation of guidelines, future CPGs should include them as dissemination tools, but they need to reflect the data and detailed text and be sufficiently specific to be actionable.

The systematic nature in the identification, summarization, and assessment of the CPGs is a strength of this review. This process removed any potential bias associated with subjective selection of evidence, which is not reproducible. However, only CPGs published in English were included and regardless of their quality and differing timeframes of development and publication, complicating a direct comparison of consensus and disagreement. Finally, based on the focus of this SLR, we only reviewed pharmacologic management with antipsychotics. Clearly, the assessment, other pharmacologic and, especially, psychosocial interventions are important in the management of individuals with schizophrenia, but these topics that were covered to varying degrees by the evaluated CPGs were outside of the scope of this review.

Numerous guidelines have recently updated their recommendations on the pharmacological treatment of patients with schizophrenia, which we have summarized in this review. Consistent recommendations were observed across CPGs in the areas of balancing risk and benefits of antipsychotics when selecting treatment, a preference for antipsychotic monotherapy, especially for patients with a first episode of schizophrenia, and the use of clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. By contrast, there were inconsistencies with regards to recommendations on maintenance antipsychotic treatment, with differences existing on type and dose of antipsychotic, as well as the duration of therapy. However, LAIs were consistently recommended, but mainly suggested in cases of nonadherence or patient preference, despite their established efficacy in broader patient populations and clinical scenarios in clinical trials. Guidelines were sometimes contradictory, with some recommending LAI use earlier in the disease course (e.g., first episode) and others suggesting they only be reserved for later in the disease. This inconsistency was not due to lack of evidence on the efficacy of LAIs in first-episode schizophrenia or the timing of the CPG, so that other reasons might be responsible, including possibly bias and stigma associated with this route of treatment administration. Lastly, gaps existed in the guidelines for recommendations on the duration of maintenance treatment, treatment of negative symptoms, and the development/use of treatment algorithms whenever evidence is sufficient to provide a simplified summary of the data and indicate their relevance for clinical decision making, all of which should be considered in future guideline development/revisions.

The SLR followed established best methods used in systematic review research to identify and assess the available CPGs for pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia with antipsychotics in the acute and maintenance phases 80 , 81 . The SLR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including use of a prespecified protocol to outline methods for conducting the review. The protocol for this review was approved by all authors prior to implementation but was not submitted to an external registry.

Data sources and search algorithms

Searches were conducted by two independent investigators in the MEDLINE and Embase databases via OvidSP to identify CPGs published in English. Articles were identified using search algorithms that paired terms for schizophrenia with keywords for CPGs. Articles indexed as case reports, reviews, letters, or news were excluded from the searches. The database search was limited to CPGs published from January 1, 2004, through December 19, 2019, without limit to geographic location. In addition to the database sources, guideline body websites and state-level health departments from the US were also searched for relevant CPGs published through June 2020. A manual check of the references of recent (i.e., published in the past three years), relevant SLRs and relevant practice CPGs was conducted to supplement the above searches and ensure and the most complete CPG retrieval.

This study did not involve human subjects as only published evidence was included in the review; ethical approval from an institution was therefore not required.

Selection of CPGs for inclusion

Each title and abstract identified from the database searches was screened and selected for inclusion or exclusion in the SLR by two independent investigators based on the populations, interventions/comparators, outcomes, study design, time period, language, and geographic criteria shown in Table 4 . During both rounds of the screening process, discrepancies between the two independent reviewers were resolved through discussion, and a third investigator resolved any disagreement. Articles/documents identified by the manual search of organizational websites were screened using the same criteria. All accepted studies were required to meet all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria. Only the most recent version of organizational CPGs was included for data extraction.

Data extraction and synthesis

Information on the recommendations regarding the antipsychotic management in the acute and maintenance phases of schizophrenia and related benefits and harms was captured from the included CPGs. Each guideline was reviewed and extracted by a single researcher and the data were validated by a senior team member to ensure accuracy and completeness. Additionally, each included CPG was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. Following extraction and validation, results were qualitatively summarized across CPGs.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of the SLR are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Correll, C. U. & Schooler, N. R. Negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a review and clinical guide for recognition, assessment, and treatment. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 16 , 519–534 (2020).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kahn, R. S. et al. Schizophrenia. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 1 , 15067 (2015).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Millan, M. J. et al. Altering the course of schizophrenia: progress and perspectives. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 15 , 485–515 (2016).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Huhn, M. et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet 394 , 939–951 (2019).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kishimoto, T., Hagi, K., Nitta, M., Kane, J. M. & Correll, C. U. Long-term effectiveness of oral second-generation antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct head-to-head comparisons. World Psychiatry 18 , 208–224 (2019).

Leucht, S. et al. Antipsychotic drugs versus placebo for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 379 , 2063–2071 (2012).

Carbon, M. & Correll, C. U. Clinical predictors of therapeutic response to antipsychotics in schizophrenia. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 16 , 505–524 (2014).

Correll, C. U., Rubio, J. M. & Kane, J. M. What is the risk-benefit ratio of long-term antipsychotic treatment in people with schizophrenia? World Psychiatry 17 , 149–160 (2018).

Emsley, R., Chiliza, B., Asmal, L. & Harvey, B. H. The nature of relapse in schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry 13 , 50 (2013).

Correll, C. U. & Kane, J. M. Ranking antipsychotics for efficacy and safety in schizophrenia. JAMA Psychiatry 77 , 225–226 (2020).

Kane, J. M. & Correll, C. U. Pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 12 , 345–357 (2010).

Kane, J. M., Kishimoto, T. & Correll, C. U. Non-adherence to medication in patients with psychotic disorders: epidemiology, contributing factors and management strategies. World Psychiatry 12 , 216–226 (2013).

Correll, C. U. et al. The use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics in schizophrenia: evaluating the evidence. J. Clin. Psychiatry 77 , 1–24 (2016).

Remington, G. et al. Guidelines for the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia in adults. Can. J. Psychiatry 62 , 604–616 (2017).

American Psychiatric Association. Treatment recommendations for patients with schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 161 , 1–56 (2004).

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, Field, M. J., & Lohr, K. N. (Eds.). Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. (National Academies Press (US), 1990).

American Psychiatric Association. Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia , 3rd edn. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890424841 .

Florida Medicaid Drug Therapy Management Program. 2019–2020 Florida Best Practice Psychotherapeutic Medication Guidelines for Adults . (2020). Available at: https://floridabhcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2019-Psychotherapeutic-Medication-Guidelines-for-Adults-with-References_06-04-20.pdf .

Mental Health Clinical Advisory Group, Oregon Health Authority. Mental Health Care Guide for Licensed Practitioners and Mental Health Professionals. (2019). Available at: https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/DHSForms/Served/le7548.pdf .

Krogmann, A. et al. Keeping up with the therapeutic advances in schizophrenia: a review of novel and emerging pharmacological entities. CNS Spectr. 24 , 38–69 (2019).

Fountoulakis, K. N. et al. The report of the joint WPA/CINP workgroup on the use and usefulness of antipsychotic medication in the treatment of schizophrenia. CNS Spectr . https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852920001546 (2020).

Leucht, S. et al. CINP Schizophrenia Guidelines . (CINP, 2013). Available at: https://www.cinp.org/resources/Documents/CINP-schizophrenia-guideline-24.5.2013-A-C-method.pdf .

Ostuzzi, G. et al. Mapping the evidence on pharmacological interventions for non-affective psychosis in humanitarian non-specialised settings: A UNHCR clinical guidance. BMC Med. 15 , 197 (2017).

Hasan, A. et al. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia, Part 1: Update 2012 on the acute treatment of schizophrenia and the management of treatment resistance. World J. Biol. Psychiatry 13 , 318–378 (2012).

Hasan, A. et al. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia, Part 2: Update 2012 on the long-term treatment of schizophrenia and management of antipsychotic-induced side effects. World J. Biol. Psychiatry 14 , 2–44 (2013).

Hasan, A. et al. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia - a short version for primary care. Int. J. Psychiatry Clin. Pract. 21 , 82–90 (2017).

Moore, T. A. et al. The Texas Medication Algorithm Project antipsychotic algorithm for schizophrenia: 2006 update. J. Clin. Psychiatry 68 , 1751–1762 (2007).

Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) Procedural Manual . (2008). Available at: https://jpshealthnet.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/tmapalgorithmforschizophrenia.pdf .

American Association of Community Psychiatrists (AACP). Clinical Tips Series, Long Acting Antipsychotic Medications. (2017). Accessed at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unigjmjFJkqZMbaZ_ftdj8oqog49awZs/view .

Buchanan, R. W. et al. The 2009 schizophrenia PORT psychopharmacological treatment recommendations and summary statements. Schizophr. Bull. 36 , 71–93 (2010).

Kreyenbuhl, J. et al. The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): updated treatment recommendations 2009. Schizophr. Bull. 36 , 94–103 (2010).

New Jersey Division of Mental Health Services. Pharmacological Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Schizophrenia . (2005). Available at: https://www.state.nj.us/humanservices/dmhs_delete/consumer/NJDMHS_Pharmacological_Practice_Guidelines762005.pdf .

Barnes, T. R. et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: updated recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J. Psychopharmacol. 34 , 3–78 (2020).

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: prevention and management. (2014). Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178 .

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of Schizophrenia: A National Clinical Guideline . (2013). Available at: https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign131.pdf .

Verma, S. et al. Ministry of Health Clinical Practice Guidelines: Schizophrenia. Singap. Med. J. 52 , 521–526 (2011).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Szulc, A. et al. Recommendations for the treatment of schizophrenia with negative symptoms. Standards of pharmacotherapy by the Polish Psychiatric Association (Polskie Towarzystwo Psychiatryczne), part 1. Rekomendacje dotyczace leczenia schizofrenii z. objawami negatywnymi. Stand. farmakoterapii Polskiego Tow. Psychiatrycznego, czesc 1. 53 , 497–524 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Szulc, A. et al. Recommendations for the treatment of schizophrenia with negative symptoms. Standards of pharmacotherapy by the Polish Psychiatric Association (Polskie Towarzystwo Psychiatryczne), part 2. Rekomendacje dotyczace leczenia schizofrenii z. objawami negatywnymi. Stand. farmakoterapii Polskiego Tow. Psychiatrycznego, czesc 2. 53 , 525–540 (2019).

Galletly, C. et al. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the management of schizophrenia and related disorders. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 50 , 410–472 (2016).

Llorca, P. M. et al. Guidelines for the use and management of long-acting injectable antipsychotics in serious mental illness. BMC Psychiatry 13 , 340 (2013).

De Masi, S. et al. The Italian guidelines for early intervention in schizophrenia: development and conclusions. Early Intervention Psychiatry 2 , 291–302 (2008).

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnes, T. R. Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J. Psychopharmacol. 25 , 567–620 (2011).

Correll, C. U. et al. Efficacy of 42 pharmacologic cotreatment strategies added to antipsychotic monotherapy in schizophrenia: systematic overview and quality appraisal of the meta-analytic evidence. JAMA Psychiatry 74 , 675–684 (2017).

Galling, B. et al. Antipsychotic augmentation vs. monotherapy in schizophrenia: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. World Psychiatry 16 , 77–89 (2017).

Pillinger, T. et al. Comparative effects of 18 antipsychotics on metabolic function in patients with schizophrenia, predictors of metabolic dysregulation, and association with psychopathology: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 7 , 64–77 (2020).

Rummel-Kluge, C. et al. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs and extrapyramidal side effects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons. Schizophr. Bull. 38 , 167–177 (2012).

Angermeyer, M. C. & Matschinger, H. Attitude of family to neuroleptics. Psychiatr. Prax. 26 , 171–174 (1999).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dibonaventura, M., Gabriel, S., Dupclay, L., Gupta, S. & Kim, E. A patient perspective of the impact of medication side effects on adherence: results of a cross-sectional nationwide survey of patients with schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry 12 , 20 (2012).

McIntyre, R. S. Understanding needs, interactions, treatment, and expectations among individuals affected by bipolar disorder or schizophrenia: the UNITE global survey. J. Clin. Psychiatry 70 (Suppl 3), 5–11 (2009).

Tandon, R. et al. The impact on functioning of second-generation antipsychotic medication side effects for patients with schizophrenia: a worldwide, cross-sectional, web-based survey. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 19 , 42 (2020).

Zhang, J. P. et al. Efficacy and safety of individual second-generation vs. first-generation antipsychotics in first-episode psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 16 , 1205–1218 (2013).

Zhu, Y. et al. Antipsychotic drugs for the acute treatment of patients with a first episode of schizophrenia: a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analyses. Lancet Psychiatry 4 , 694–705 (2017).

Kishimoto, T. et al. Relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of second-generation antipsychotics versus first-generation antipsychotics. Mol. Psychiatry 18 , 53–66 (2013).

Leucht, S. et al. Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, Bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors. Am. J. Psychiatry 174 , 927–942 (2017).

Samara, M. T., Nikolakopoulou, A., Salanti, G. & Leucht, S. How many patients with schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotic drugs in the short term? An analysis based on individual patient data from randomized controlled trials. Schizophr. Bull. 45 , 639–646 (2019).

Zhu, Y. et al. How well do patients with a first episode of schizophrenia respond to antipsychotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 27 , 835–844 (2017).

Bogers, J. P. A. M., Hambarian, G., Michiels, M., Vermeulen, J. & de Haan, L. Risk factors for psychotic relapse after dose reduction or discontinuation of antipsychotics in patients with chronic schizophrenia. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr. Bull. Open 46 , Suppl 1 S326 (2020).

Tani, H. et al. Factors associated with successful antipsychotic dose reduction in schizophrenia: a systematic review of prospective clinical trials and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neuropsychopharmacology 45 , 887–901 (2020).

Uchida, H., Suzuki, T., Takeuchi, H., Arenovich, T. & Mamo, D. C. Low dose vs standard dose of antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: meta-analysis. Schizophr. Bull. 37 , 788–799 (2011).

Howes, O. D. et al. Treatment-resistant schizophrenia: treatment response and resistance in psychosis (TRRIP) working group consensus guidelines on diagnosis and terminology. Am. J. Psychiatry 174 , 216–229 (2017).

Masuda, T., Misawa, F., Takase, M., Kane, J. M. & Correll, C. U. Association with hospitalization and all-cause discontinuation among patients with schizophrenia on clozapine vs other oral second-generation antipsychotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. JAMA Psychiatry 76 , 1052–1062 (2019).

Siskind, D., McCartney, L., Goldschlager, R. & Kisely, S. Clozapine v. first- and second-generation antipsychotics in treatment-refractory schizophrenia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Psychiatry 209 , 385–392 (2016).

Siskind, D., Siskind, V. & Kisely, S. Clozapine response rates among people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: data from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can. J. Psychiatry 62 , 772–777 (2017).

Wang, G. et al. ECT augmentation of clozapine for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Psychiatr. Res. 105 , 23–32 (2018).

Tiihonen, J., Tanskanen, A. & Taipale, H. 20-year nationwide follow-up study on discontinuation of antipsychotic treatment in first-episode schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 175 , 765–773 (2018).

Taipale, H. et al. Antipsychotics and mortality in a nationwide cohort of 29,823 patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr. Res . 197 , 274–280 (2018).

Taipale, H. et al. 20-year follow-up study of physical morbidity and mortality in relationship to antipsychotic treatment in a nationwide cohort of 62,250 patients with schizophrenia (FIN20). World Psychiatry 19 , 61–68 (2020).

Carbon, M. & Correll, C. U. Thinking and acting beyond the positive: the role of the cognitive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia. CNS Spectr. 19 (Suppl 1), 38–52 (2014).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Krause, M. et al. Antipsychotic drugs for patients with schizophrenia and predominant or prominent negative symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 268 , 625–639 (2018).

Kane, J. M. et al. Effect of long-acting injectable antipsychotics vs usual care on time to first hospitalization in early-phase schizophrenia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry 77 , 1217–1224 (2020).

Schreiner, A. et al. Paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotics in recently diagnosed schizophrenia. Schizophr. Res. 169 , 393–399 (2015).

Subotnik, K. L. et al. Long-acting injectable risperidone for relapse prevention and control of breakthrough symptoms after a recent first episode of schizophrenia. A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry 72 , 822–829 (2015).

Tiihonen, J. et al. A nationwide cohort study of oral and depot antipsychotics after first hospitalization for schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 168 , 603–609 (2011).

Zhang, F. et al. Efficacy, safety, and impact on hospitalizations of paliperidone palmitate in recent-onset schizophrenia. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 11 , 657–668 (2015).

Kishimoto, T., Nitta, M., Borenstein, M., Kane, J. M. & Correll, C. U. Long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of mirror-image studies. J. Clin. Psychiatry 74 , 957–965 (2013).

Kishimoto, T. et al. Effectiveness of long-acting injectable vs oral antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Schizophr. Bull. 44 , 603–619 (2018).

Kishimoto, T. et al. Long-acting injectable vs oral antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Schizophr. Bull. 40 , 192–213 (2014).

Kane, J. M., Kishimoto, T. & Correll, C. U. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of long-acting injectable vs. oral antipsychotic medications in the prevention of relapse provides a case study in comparative effectiveness research in psychiatry. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66 , S37–41 (2013).

Kishimoto, T., Hagi, K., Kurokawa, S., Kane, J. M. & Correll, C. U. Long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of randomised, cohort, and pre-post studies. Lancet Psychiatry 8 , 387–404 (2021).

Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D. & Haynes, R. B. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann. Intern. Med. 126 , 376–380 (1997).

Higgins, J. P. T. & Green, S. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . (The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study received financial funding from Janssen Scientific Affairs.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, NY, USA

• Christoph U. Correll

Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Department of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA

Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Berlin, Germany

Evidera, Waltham, MA, USA

Amber Martin & Emma Schiller

Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA

Charmi Patel, Carmela Benson, Jennifer Kern-Sliwa & Kruti Joshi

Goulding HEOR Consulting Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada

Rebecca Goulding

Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

C.C., A.M., R.G., C.P., C.B., K.J., J.K.S., E.S. and E.K. contributed to the conception and the design of the study. A.M., R.G. and E.S. conducted the literature review, including screening, and extraction of the included guidelines. All authors contributed to the interpretations of the results for the review; A.M. and C.C. drafted the manuscript and all authors revised it critically for intellectual content. All authors gave their final approval of the completed manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph U. Correll .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

C.C. has received personal fees from Alkermes plc, Allergan plc, Angelini Pharma, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc, Janssen Pharmaceutica/Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharma International BV, H Lundbeck A/S, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine Biosciences, Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Inc, Pfizer, Inc, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Axsome Therapeutics, Inc, Indivior, Merck & Co, Mylan NV, MedInCell, and Karuna Therapeutics and grants from Janssen Pharmaceutica, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Berlin Institute of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Thrasher Foundation outside the submitted work; receiving royalties from UpToDate; and holding stock options in LB Pharma. A.M., R.G., and E.S. were all employees of Evidera at the time the study was conducted on which the manuscript was based. C.P., C.B., K.J., J.K.S., and E.K. were all employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, who hold stock/shares, at the time the study was conducted.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Correll, C.U., Martin, A., Patel, C. et al. Systematic literature review of schizophrenia clinical practice guidelines on acute and maintenance management with antipsychotics. Schizophr 8 , 5 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-021-00192-x

Download citation

Received : 26 February 2021

Accepted : 02 November 2021

Published : 24 February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-021-00192-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Psychosis superspectrum ii: neurobiology, treatment, and implications.

• Roman Kotov
• William T. Carpenter
• Katherine G. Jonas

Molecular Psychiatry (2024)

Sex Differences Between Female and Male Individuals in Antipsychotic Efficacy and Adverse Effects in the Treatment of Schizophrenia

• Megan Galbally
• Karen Wynter
• Susanna Every-Palmer

CNS Drugs (2024)

Antipsychotic Discontinuation through the Lens of Epistemic Injustice

• Helene Speyer
• Lene Falgaard Eplov

Community Mental Health Journal (2024)

Delphi panel to obtain clinical consensus about using long-acting injectable antipsychotics to treat first-episode and early-phase schizophrenia: treatment goals and approaches to functional recovery

• Celso Arango
• Andrea Fagiolini

BMC Psychiatry (2023)

Machine learning methods to predict outcomes of pharmacological treatment in psychosis

• Lorenzo Del Fabro
• Elena Bondi
• Paolo Brambilla

Translational Psychiatry (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Article Contents

To the editor:, author contributions, authors’ disclosures or potential conflicts of interest, research funding, disclosures, high lead levels in 2 independent and authenticated locks of beethoven’s hair.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Nader Rifai, William Meredith, Kevin Brown, Sarah A Erdahl, Paul J Jannetto, High Lead Levels in 2 Independent and Authenticated Locks of Beethoven’s Hair, Clinical Chemistry , 2024;, hvae054, https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae054

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The composer Ludwig van Beethoven’s health issues throughout his life are well documented, with many conjectures on the cause of his death from liver and kidney disease. The presence of high hair lead concentration in Beethoven led to speculation by Reiter, who claimed that it caused the composer’s ailments, including his deafness, and demise ( 1 ). However, genomic studies demonstrated that the Hiller (formerly known as the Guevara) Lock used in that study belonged to a woman ( 2 ).

Here we describe, for the first time, high lead concentrations in 2 independent and authenticated locks of hair from Beethoven, the Bermann (0.0413 g collected between late 1820 and March 1827) and the Halm-Thayer (0.0284 g collected April 1826) Locks. The authentication of the 2 locks was previously confirmed in a landmark report of the sequencing of Beethoven’s whole genome ( 2 ). Five of the 8 locks of Beethoven’s hair examined by Beggs et al. ( 2 ), including the Bermann and the Halm-Thayer Locks used in the current study, shared identical mitochondrial genomes of haplogroup H1b1 + 16,362C with a private mutation at C16,176T and had male XY karyotypes, demonstrating that the samples either came from a single individual or monozygotic twins. All 5 matching samples showed DNA damage that is consistent with an origin in the early 19th century. Furthermore, the Halm-Thayer Lock is one of the only 2 with an intact chain of custody; Beethoven hand-delivered the lock himself to the pianist Anton Halm in April 1826 ( 3 ). Therefore, it was concluded that these findings presented compelling evidence for the identity of the 5 independent locks of hair. Although the analysis revealed several significant genetic risk factors for liver disease and evidence of an infection with hepatitis B virus that may have contributed to his death, it did not shed light on the definitive causes of his deafness and gastrointestinal problems.

Arsenic, mercury, and lead in the locks were analyzed using a clinically validated method in accordance with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines on a NexION 350 inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer in kinetic energy discrimination mode and confirmed on an Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer. To minimize external contamination of lead from the environment or dyes, the locks of hair (0.01 g) were first washed with detergent, dried, and weighed. Patient hair samples, hair quality control, and National Institute of Standards and Technology standard reference material were then digested in nitric acid and analyzed neat and with dilutions (×3 or ×4 in duplicate) on both inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry methods.

Our findings confirm the presence of high hair lead concentrations in both the Bermann Lock (method 1, 258 µg/g; method 2, 254 µg/g) and the Halm-Thayer Lock (method 1, 380 µg/g; method 2, 369 µg/g), approximately 64- and 95- fold higher than the upper limit of the reference interval (<4 µg/g), respectively. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposed conversion formula of values from hair lead concentration to blood lead concentration ( 4 ), the estimate of Beethoven’s blood lead concentration would have been 69 to 71 µg/dL. Such lead levels are commonly associated with gastrointestinal and renal ailments and decreased hearing but are not considered high enough to be the sole cause of death. Suggested primary sources of lead exposure include plumbed wine, dietary factors, and medical treatments ( 5 ). Worth noting is that we also observed increased levels of arsenic and mercury in both locks of hair by approximately 13- and 4-fold compared to the reference intervals (<1 µg/g), respectively.

Our findings establish increased lead levels in 2 independent and authenticated locks of hair from Beethoven. The limitations of our study, however, deserve mention. Hair analysis is subject to error from contamination of the surface with environmental lead and contaminants in artificial hair treatments (i.e., dyes). However, Beethoven is not known to have used hair dyes, and the procedure used in this study is consistent with that recommended by the Society of Hair Testing, which includes use of aqueous solvents with detergent to remove external contaminants. Furthermore, low hair lead concentration may be a poor predictor of blood lead values and the potential associated ailments. However, higher hair lead concentrations, such as those seen in this study, have been shown to correlate with kidney and liver disease ( 6 ). While the concentrations determined are not supportive of the notion that lead exposure caused Beethoven’s death, it may have contributed to the documented ailments that plagued him most of his life. We believe this is an important piece of a complex puzzle and will enable historians, physicians, and scientists to better understand the medical history of the great composer.

The corresponding author takes full responsibility that all authors on this publication have met the following required criteria of eligibility for authorship: (a) significant contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) drafting or revising the article for intellectual content; (c) final approval of the published article; and (d) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the article thus ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the article are appropriately investigated and resolved. Nobody who qualifies for authorship has been omitted from the list.

Nader Rifai (Conceptualization—Equal, Writing-original draft—Lead, Writing-review & editing—Equal), William Meredith (Conceptualization-Equal, Investigation-Equal, Resources-Equal, Writing—review & editing-Equal), Kevin Brown (Conceptualization-Equal, Investigation-Equal, Resources-Equal, Writing—review & editing-Equal), Sarah A. Erdahl (Data curation-Equal, Formal analysis-Equal, Methodology-Equal, Writing—review & editing-Equal), and Paul Jannetto (Formal analysis-Equal, Methodology-Equal, Supervision-Equal, Writing—review & editing-Equal).

Upon manuscript submission, all authors completed the author disclosure form.

None declared.

N. Rifai is past editor-in-chief of Clinical Chemistry . P.J. Jannetto has grants or contracts from Roche Diagnostics Inc., Thermo Scientific Inc., and Breath Diagnostics and served as secretary of the ADLM (formerly AACC) board of directors.

Reiter   C . The causes of Beethoven’s death and his locks of hair: a forensic-toxicological investigation . Beethoven J   2007 ; 22 : 1 .

Google Scholar

Begg   TJA , Schmidt   A , Kocher   A , Larmuseau   MHD , Runfeldt   G , Maier   PA , et al.    Genomic analysis of hair from Ludwig van Beethoven . Current Biol   2023 ; 33 : 1431 – 1447.e22 .

Thayer   AW . Ludwig van Beethovens Leben, Band 4 . New York (NY) : Schneider ; 1907 .

Google Preview

Esteban   E , Rubin   CH , Jones   RL , Noona   G . Hair and blood as substrates for screening children for lead poisoning . Arch Environ Health   1999 ; 54 : 436 – 40 .

Jonasson   ME , Afshari   R . Historical documentation of lead toxicity prior to the 20th century in English literature . Hum Exp Toxicol   2018 ; 37 : 775 – 88 .

Mantinieks   D , Gerostamoulos   D , Wright   P , Drummer   O . The effectiveness of decontamination procedures used in forensic hair analysis . Forensic Sci Med Pathol   2018 ; 14 : 349 – 57 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1530-8561
• Print ISSN 0009-9147
• Copyright © 2024 Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Cultural Relativity and Acceptance of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

There is a debate about the ethical implications of using human embryos in stem cell research, which can be influenced by cultural, moral, and social values. This paper argues for an adaptable framework to accommodate diverse cultural and religious perspectives. By using an adaptive ethics model, research protections can reflect various populations and foster growth in stem cell research possibilities.

INTRODUCTION

Stem cell research combines biology, medicine, and technology, promising to alter health care and the understanding of human development. Yet, ethical contention exists because of individuals’ perceptions of using human embryos based on their various cultural, moral, and social values. While these disagreements concerning policy, use, and general acceptance have prompted the development of an international ethics policy, such a uniform approach can overlook the nuanced ethical landscapes between cultures. With diverse viewpoints in public health, a single global policy, especially one reflecting Western ethics or the ethics prevalent in high-income countries, is impractical. This paper argues for a culturally sensitive, adaptable framework for the use of embryonic stem cells. Stem cell policy should accommodate varying ethical viewpoints and promote an effective global dialogue. With an extension of an ethics model that can adapt to various cultures, we recommend localized guidelines that reflect the moral views of the people those guidelines serve.

Stem cells, characterized by their unique ability to differentiate into various cell types, enable the repair or replacement of damaged tissues. Two primary types of stem cells are somatic stem cells (adult stem cells) and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells exist in developed tissues and maintain the body’s repair processes. [1] Embryonic stem cells (ESC) are remarkably pluripotent or versatile, making them valuable in research. [2] However, the use of ESCs has sparked ethics debates. Considering the potential of embryonic stem cells, research guidelines are essential. The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) provides international stem cell research guidelines. They call for “public conversations touching on the scientific significance as well as the societal and ethical issues raised by ESC research.” [3] The ISSCR also publishes updates about culturing human embryos 14 days post fertilization, suggesting local policies and regulations should continue to evolve as ESC research develops. [4]  Like the ISSCR, which calls for local law and policy to adapt to developing stem cell research given cultural acceptance, this paper highlights the importance of local social factors such as religion and culture.

I.     Global Cultural Perspective of Embryonic Stem Cells

Views on ESCs vary throughout the world. Some countries readily embrace stem cell research and therapies, while others have stricter regulations due to ethical concerns surrounding embryonic stem cells and when an embryo becomes entitled to moral consideration. The philosophical issue of when the “someone” begins to be a human after fertilization, in the morally relevant sense, [5] impacts when an embryo becomes not just worthy of protection but morally entitled to it. The process of creating embryonic stem cell lines involves the destruction of the embryos for research. [6] Consequently, global engagement in ESC research depends on social-cultural acceptability.

a.     US and Rights-Based Cultures

In the United States, attitudes toward stem cell therapies are diverse. The ethics and social approaches, which value individualism, [7] trigger debates regarding the destruction of human embryos, creating a complex regulatory environment. For example, the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibited federal funding for the creation of embryos for research and the destruction of embryos for “more than allowed for research on fetuses in utero.” [8] Following suit, in 2001, the Bush Administration heavily restricted stem cell lines for research. However, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 was proposed to help develop ESC research but was ultimately vetoed. [9] Under the Obama administration, in 2009, an executive order lifted restrictions allowing for more development in this field. [10] The flux of research capacity and funding parallels the different cultural perceptions of human dignity of the embryo and how it is socially presented within the country’s research culture. [11]

b.     Ubuntu and Collective Cultures

African bioethics differs from Western individualism because of the different traditions and values. African traditions, as described by individuals from South Africa and supported by some studies in other African countries, including Ghana and Kenya, follow the African moral philosophies of Ubuntu or Botho and Ukama , which “advocates for a form of wholeness that comes through one’s relationship and connectedness with other people in the society,” [12] making autonomy a socially collective concept. In this context, for the community to act autonomously, individuals would come together to decide what is best for the collective. Thus, stem cell research would require examining the value of the research to society as a whole and the use of the embryos as a collective societal resource. If society views the source as part of the collective whole, and opposes using stem cells, compromising the cultural values to pursue research may cause social detachment and stunt research growth. [13] Based on local culture and moral philosophy, the permissibility of stem cell research depends on how embryo, stem cell, and cell line therapies relate to the community as a whole . Ubuntu is the expression of humanness, with the person’s identity drawn from the “’I am because we are’” value. [14] The decision in a collectivistic culture becomes one born of cultural context, and individual decisions give deference to others in the society.

Consent differs in cultures where thought and moral philosophy are based on a collective paradigm. So, applying Western bioethical concepts is unrealistic. For one, Africa is a diverse continent with many countries with different belief systems, access to health care, and reliance on traditional or Western medicines. Where traditional medicine is the primary treatment, the “’restrictive focus on biomedically-related bioethics’” [is] problematic in African contexts because it neglects bioethical issues raised by traditional systems.” [15] No single approach applies in all areas or contexts. Rather than evaluating the permissibility of ESC research according to Western concepts such as the four principles approach, different ethics approaches should prevail.

Another consideration is the socio-economic standing of countries. In parts of South Africa, researchers have not focused heavily on contributing to the stem cell discourse, either because it is not considered health care or a health science priority or because resources are unavailable. [16] Each country’s priorities differ given different social, political, and economic factors. In South Africa, for instance, areas such as maternal mortality, non-communicable diseases, telemedicine, and the strength of health systems need improvement and require more focus. [17] Stem cell research could benefit the population, but it also could divert resources from basic medical care. Researchers in South Africa adhere to the National Health Act and Medicines Control Act in South Africa and international guidelines; however, the Act is not strictly enforced, and there is no clear legislation for research conduct or ethical guidelines. [18]

Some parts of Africa condemn stem cell research. For example, 98.2 percent of the Tunisian population is Muslim. [19] Tunisia does not permit stem cell research because of moral conflict with a Fatwa. Religion heavily saturates the regulation and direction of research. [20] Stem cell use became permissible for reproductive purposes only recently, with tight restrictions preventing cells from being used in any research other than procedures concerning ART/IVF.  Their use is conditioned on consent, and available only to married couples. [21] The community's receptiveness to stem cell research depends on including communitarian African ethics.

c.     Asia

Some Asian countries also have a collective model of ethics and decision making. [22] In China, the ethics model promotes a sincere respect for life or human dignity, [23] based on protective medicine. This model, influenced by Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), [24] recognizes Qi as the vital energy delivered via the meridians of the body; it connects illness to body systems, the body’s entire constitution, and the universe for a holistic bond of nature, health, and quality of life. [25] Following a protective ethics model, and traditional customs of wholeness, investment in stem cell research is heavily desired for its applications in regenerative therapies, disease modeling, and protective medicines. In a survey of medical students and healthcare practitioners, 30.8 percent considered stem cell research morally unacceptable while 63.5 percent accepted medical research using human embryonic stem cells. Of these individuals, 89.9 percent supported increased funding for stem cell research. [26] The scientific community might not reflect the overall population. From 1997 to 2019, China spent a total of $576 million (USD) on stem cell research at 8,050 stem cell programs, increased published presence from 0.6 percent to 14.01 percent of total global stem cell publications as of 2014, and made significant strides in cell-based therapies for various medical conditions. [27] However, while China has made substantial investments in stem cell research and achieved notable progress in clinical applications, concerns linger regarding ethical oversight and transparency. [28] For example, the China Biosecurity Law, promoted by the National Health Commission and China Hospital Association, attempted to mitigate risks by introducing an institutional review board (IRB) in the regulatory bodies. 5800 IRBs registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry since 2021. [29] However, issues still need to be addressed in implementing effective IRB review and approval procedures.

The substantial government funding and focus on scientific advancement have sometimes overshadowed considerations of regional cultures, ethnic minorities, and individual perspectives, particularly evident during the one-child policy era. As government policy adapts to promote public stability, such as the change from the one-child to the two-child policy, [30] research ethics should also adapt to ensure respect for the values of its represented peoples.

Japan is also relatively supportive of stem cell research and therapies. Japan has a more transparent regulatory framework, allowing for faster approval of regenerative medicine products, which has led to several advanced clinical trials and therapies. [31] South Korea is also actively engaged in stem cell research and has a history of breakthroughs in cloning and embryonic stem cells. [32] However, the field is controversial, and there are issues of scientific integrity. For example, the Korean FDA fast-tracked products for approval, [33] and in another instance, the oocyte source was unclear and possibly violated ethical standards. [34] Trust is important in research, as it builds collaborative foundations between colleagues, trial participant comfort, open-mindedness for complicated and sensitive discussions, and supports regulatory procedures for stakeholders. There is a need to respect the culture’s interest, engagement, and for research and clinical trials to be transparent and have ethical oversight to promote global research discourse and trust.

d.     Middle East

Countries in the Middle East have varying degrees of acceptance of or restrictions to policies related to using embryonic stem cells due to cultural and religious influences. Saudi Arabia has made significant contributions to stem cell research, and conducts research based on international guidelines for ethical conduct and under strict adherence to guidelines in accordance with Islamic principles. Specifically, the Saudi government and people require ESC research to adhere to Sharia law. In addition to umbilical and placental stem cells, [35] Saudi Arabia permits the use of embryonic stem cells as long as they come from miscarriages, therapeutic abortions permissible by Sharia law, or are left over from in vitro fertilization and donated to research. [36] Laws and ethical guidelines for stem cell research allow the development of research institutions such as the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, which has a cord blood bank and a stem cell registry with nearly 10,000 donors. [37] Such volume and acceptance are due to the ethical ‘permissibility’ of the donor sources, which do not conflict with religious pillars. However, some researchers err on the side of caution, choosing not to use embryos or fetal tissue as they feel it is unethical to do so. [38]

Jordan has a positive research ethics culture. [39] However, there is a significant issue of lack of trust in researchers, with 45.23 percent (38.66 percent agreeing and 6.57 percent strongly agreeing) of Jordanians holding a low level of trust in researchers, compared to 81.34 percent of Jordanians agreeing that they feel safe to participate in a research trial. [40] Safety testifies to the feeling of confidence that adequate measures are in place to protect participants from harm, whereas trust in researchers could represent the confidence in researchers to act in the participants’ best interests, adhere to ethical guidelines, provide accurate information, and respect participants’ rights and dignity. One method to improve trust would be to address communication issues relevant to ESC. Legislation surrounding stem cell research has adopted specific language, especially concerning clarification “between ‘stem cells’ and ‘embryonic stem cells’” in translation. [41] Furthermore, legislation “mandates the creation of a national committee… laying out specific regulations for stem-cell banking in accordance with international standards.” [42] This broad regulation opens the door for future global engagement and maintains transparency. However, these regulations may also constrain the influence of research direction, pace, and accessibility of research outcomes.

e.     Europe

In the European Union (EU), ethics is also principle-based, but the principles of autonomy, dignity, integrity, and vulnerability are interconnected. [43] As such, the opportunity for cohesion and concessions between individuals’ thoughts and ideals allows for a more adaptable ethics model due to the flexible principles that relate to the human experience The EU has put forth a framework in its Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being allowing member states to take different approaches. Each European state applies these principles to its specific conventions, leading to or reflecting different acceptance levels of stem cell research. [44]

For example, in Germany, Lebenzusammenhang , or the coherence of life, references integrity in the unity of human culture. Namely, the personal sphere “should not be subject to external intervention.” [45]  Stem cell interventions could affect this concept of bodily completeness, leading to heavy restrictions. Under the Grundgesetz, human dignity and the right to life with physical integrity are paramount. [46] The Embryo Protection Act of 1991 made producing cell lines illegal. Cell lines can be imported if approved by the Central Ethics Commission for Stem Cell Research only if they were derived before May 2007. [47] Stem cell research respects the integrity of life for the embryo with heavy specifications and intense oversight. This is vastly different in Finland, where the regulatory bodies find research more permissible in IVF excess, but only up to 14 days after fertilization. [48] Spain’s approach differs still, with a comprehensive regulatory framework. [49] Thus, research regulation can be culture-specific due to variations in applied principles. Diverse cultures call for various approaches to ethical permissibility. [50] Only an adaptive-deliberative model can address the cultural constructions of self and achieve positive, culturally sensitive stem cell research practices. [51]

II.     Religious Perspectives on ESC

Embryonic stem cell sources are the main consideration within religious contexts. While individuals may not regard their own religious texts as authoritative or factual, religion can shape their foundations or perspectives.

The Qur'an states:

“And indeed We created man from a quintessence of clay. Then We placed within him a small quantity of nutfa (sperm to fertilize) in a safe place. Then We have fashioned the nutfa into an ‘alaqa (clinging clot or cell cluster), then We developed the ‘alaqa into mudgha (a lump of flesh), and We made mudgha into bones, and clothed the bones with flesh, then We brought it into being as a new creation. So Blessed is Allah, the Best of Creators.” [52]

Many scholars of Islam estimate the time of soul installment, marked by the angel breathing in the soul to bring the individual into creation, as 120 days from conception. [53] Personhood begins at this point, and the value of life would prohibit research or experimentation that could harm the individual. If the fetus is more than 120 days old, the time ensoulment is interpreted to occur according to Islamic law, abortion is no longer permissible. [54] There are a few opposing opinions about early embryos in Islamic traditions. According to some Islamic theologians, there is no ensoulment of the early embryo, which is the source of stem cells for ESC research. [55]

In Buddhism, the stance on stem cell research is not settled. The main tenets, the prohibition against harming or destroying others (ahimsa) and the pursuit of knowledge (prajña) and compassion (karuna), leave Buddhist scholars and communities divided. [56] Some scholars argue stem cell research is in accordance with the Buddhist tenet of seeking knowledge and ending human suffering. Others feel it violates the principle of not harming others. Finding the balance between these two points relies on the karmic burden of Buddhist morality. In trying to prevent ahimsa towards the embryo, Buddhist scholars suggest that to comply with Buddhist tenets, research cannot be done as the embryo has personhood at the moment of conception and would reincarnate immediately, harming the individual's ability to build their karmic burden. [57] On the other hand, the Bodhisattvas, those considered to be on the path to enlightenment or Nirvana, have given organs and flesh to others to help alleviate grieving and to benefit all. [58] Acceptance varies on applied beliefs and interpretations.

Catholicism does not support embryonic stem cell research, as it entails creation or destruction of human embryos. This destruction conflicts with the belief in the sanctity of life. For example, in the Old Testament, Genesis describes humanity as being created in God’s image and multiplying on the Earth, referencing the sacred rights to human conception and the purpose of development and life. In the Ten Commandments, the tenet that one should not kill has numerous interpretations where killing could mean murder or shedding of the sanctity of life, demonstrating the high value of human personhood. In other books, the theological conception of when life begins is interpreted as in utero, [59] highlighting the inviolability of life and its formation in vivo to make a religious point for accepting such research as relatively limited, if at all. [60] The Vatican has released ethical directives to help apply a theological basis to modern-day conflicts. The Magisterium of the Church states that “unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm,” experimentation on fetuses, fertilized cells, stem cells, or embryos constitutes a crime. [61] Such procedures would not respect the human person who exists at these stages, according to Catholicism. Damages to the embryo are considered gravely immoral and illicit. [62] Although the Catholic Church officially opposes abortion, surveys demonstrate that many Catholic people hold pro-choice views, whether due to the context of conception, stage of pregnancy, threat to the mother’s life, or for other reasons, demonstrating that practicing members can also accept some but not all tenets. [63]

Some major Jewish denominations, such as the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements, are open to supporting ESC use or research as long as it is for saving a life. [64] Within Judaism, the Talmud, or study, gives personhood to the child at birth and emphasizes that life does not begin at conception: [65]

“If she is found pregnant, until the fortieth day it is mere fluid,” [66]

Whereas most religions prioritize the status of human embryos, the Halakah (Jewish religious law) states that to save one life, most other religious laws can be ignored because it is in pursuit of preservation. [67] Stem cell research is accepted due to application of these religious laws.

We recognize that all religions contain subsets and sects. The variety of environmental and cultural differences within religious groups requires further analysis to respect the flexibility of religious thoughts and practices. We make no presumptions that all cultures require notions of autonomy or morality as under the common morality theory , which asserts a set of universal moral norms that all individuals share provides moral reasoning and guides ethical decisions. [68] We only wish to show that the interaction with morality varies between cultures and countries.

III.     A Flexible Ethical Approach

The plurality of different moral approaches described above demonstrates that there can be no universally acceptable uniform law for ESC on a global scale. Instead of developing one standard, flexible ethical applications must be continued. We recommend local guidelines that incorporate important cultural and ethical priorities.

While the Declaration of Helsinki is more relevant to people in clinical trials receiving ESC products, in keeping with the tradition of protections for research subjects, consent of the donor is an ethical requirement for ESC donation in many jurisdictions including the US, Canada, and Europe. [69] The Declaration of Helsinki provides a reference point for regulatory standards and could potentially be used as a universal baseline for obtaining consent prior to gamete or embryo donation.

For instance, in Columbia University’s egg donor program for stem cell research, donors followed standard screening protocols and “underwent counseling sessions that included information as to the purpose of oocyte donation for research, what the oocytes would be used for, the risks and benefits of donation, and process of oocyte stimulation” to ensure transparency for consent. [70] The program helped advance stem cell research and provided clear and safe research methods with paid participants. Though paid participation or covering costs of incidental expenses may not be socially acceptable in every culture or context, [71] and creating embryos for ESC research is illegal in many jurisdictions, Columbia’s program was effective because of the clear and honest communications with donors, IRBs, and related stakeholders.  This example demonstrates that cultural acceptance of scientific research and of the idea that an egg or embryo does not have personhood is likely behind societal acceptance of donating eggs for ESC research. As noted, many countries do not permit the creation of embryos for research.

Proper communication and education regarding the process and purpose of stem cell research may bolster comprehension and garner more acceptance. “Given the sensitive subject material, a complete consent process can support voluntary participation through trust, understanding, and ethical norms from the cultures and morals participants value. This can be hard for researchers entering countries of different socioeconomic stability, with different languages and different societal values. [72]

An adequate moral foundation in medical ethics is derived from the cultural and religious basis that informs knowledge and actions. [73] Understanding local cultural and religious values and their impact on research could help researchers develop humility and promote inclusion.

IV.     Concerns

Some may argue that if researchers all adhere to one ethics standard, protection will be satisfied across all borders, and the global public will trust researchers. However, defining what needs to be protected and how to define such research standards is very specific to the people to which standards are applied. We suggest that applying one uniform guide cannot accurately protect each individual because we all possess our own perceptions and interpretations of social values. [74] Therefore, the issue of not adjusting to the moral pluralism between peoples in applying one standard of ethics can be resolved by building out ethics models that can be adapted to different cultures and religions.

Other concerns include medical tourism, which may promote health inequities. [75] Some countries may develop and approve products derived from ESC research before others, compromising research ethics or drug approval processes. There are also concerns about the sale of unauthorized stem cell treatments, for example, those without FDA approval in the United States. Countries with robust research infrastructures may be tempted to attract medical tourists, and some customers will have false hopes based on aggressive publicity of unproven treatments. [76]

For example, in China, stem cell clinics can market to foreign clients who are not protected under the regulatory regimes. Companies employ a marketing strategy of “ethically friendly” therapies. Specifically, in the case of Beike, China’s leading stem cell tourism company and sprouting network, ethical oversight of administrators or health bureaus at one site has “the unintended consequence of shifting questionable activities to another node in Beike's diffuse network.” [77] In contrast, Jordan is aware of stem cell research’s potential abuse and its own status as a “health-care hub.” Jordan’s expanded regulations include preserving the interests of individuals in clinical trials and banning private companies from ESC research to preserve transparency and the integrity of research practices. [78]

The social priorities of the community are also a concern. The ISSCR explicitly states that guidelines “should be periodically revised to accommodate scientific advances, new challenges, and evolving social priorities.” [79] The adaptable ethics model extends this consideration further by addressing whether research is warranted given the varying degrees of socioeconomic conditions, political stability, and healthcare accessibilities and limitations. An ethical approach would require discussion about resource allocation and appropriate distribution of funds. [80]

While some religions emphasize the sanctity of life from conception, which may lead to public opposition to ESC research, others encourage ESC research due to its potential for healing and alleviating human pain. Many countries have special regulations that balance local views on embryonic personhood, the benefits of research as individual or societal goods, and the protection of human research subjects. To foster understanding and constructive dialogue, global policy frameworks should prioritize the protection of universal human rights, transparency, and informed consent. In addition to these foundational global policies, we recommend tailoring local guidelines to reflect the diverse cultural and religious perspectives of the populations they govern. Ethics models should be adapted to local populations to effectively establish research protections, growth, and possibilities of stem cell research.

For example, in countries with strong beliefs in the moral sanctity of embryos or heavy religious restrictions, an adaptive model can allow for discussion instead of immediate rejection. In countries with limited individual rights and voice in science policy, an adaptive model ensures cultural, moral, and religious views are taken into consideration, thereby building social inclusion. While this ethical consideration by the government may not give a complete voice to every individual, it will help balance policies and maintain the diverse perspectives of those it affects. Embracing an adaptive ethics model of ESC research promotes open-minded dialogue and respect for the importance of human belief and tradition. By actively engaging with cultural and religious values, researchers can better handle disagreements and promote ethical research practices that benefit each society.

This brief exploration of the religious and cultural differences that impact ESC research reveals the nuances of relative ethics and highlights a need for local policymakers to apply a more intense adaptive model.

[1] Poliwoda, S., Noor, N., Downs, E., Schaaf, A., Cantwell, A., Ganti, L., Kaye, A. D., Mosel, L. I., Carroll, C. B., Viswanath, O., & Urits, I. (2022). Stem cells: a comprehensive review of origins and emerging clinical roles in medical practice.  Orthopedic reviews ,  14 (3), 37498. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.37498

[2] Poliwoda, S., Noor, N., Downs, E., Schaaf, A., Cantwell, A., Ganti, L., Kaye, A. D., Mosel, L. I., Carroll, C. B., Viswanath, O., & Urits, I. (2022). Stem cells: a comprehensive review of origins and emerging clinical roles in medical practice.  Orthopedic reviews ,  14 (3), 37498. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.37498

[3] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2023). Laboratory-based human embryonic stem cell research, embryo research, and related research activities . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/blog-post-title-one-ed2td-6fcdk ; Kimmelman, J., Hyun, I., Benvenisty, N.  et al.  Policy: Global standards for stem-cell research.  Nature   533 , 311–313 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/533311a

[4] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2023). Laboratory-based human embryonic stem cell research, embryo research, and related research activities . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/blog-post-title-one-ed2td-6fcdk

[5] Concerning the moral philosophies of stem cell research, our paper does not posit a personal moral stance nor delve into the “when” of human life begins. To read further about the philosophical debate, consider the following sources:

Sandel M. J. (2004). Embryo ethics--the moral logic of stem-cell research.  The New England journal of medicine ,  351 (3), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048145 ; George, R. P., & Lee, P. (2020, September 26). Acorns and Embryos . The New Atlantis. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/acorns-and-embryos ; Sagan, A., & Singer, P. (2007). The moral status of stem cells. Metaphilosophy , 38 (2/3), 264–284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439776 ; McHugh P. R. (2004). Zygote and "clonote"--the ethical use of embryonic stem cells.  The New England journal of medicine ,  351 (3), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048147 ; Kurjak, A., & Tripalo, A. (2004). The facts and doubts about beginning of the human life and personality.  Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences ,  4 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2004.3453

[6] Vazin, T., & Freed, W. J. (2010). Human embryonic stem cells: derivation, culture, and differentiation: a review.  Restorative neurology and neuroscience ,  28 (4), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-2010-0543

[7] Socially, at its core, the Western approach to ethics is widely principle-based, autonomy being one of the key factors to ensure a fundamental respect for persons within research. For information regarding autonomy in research, see: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, & National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978). The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.; For a more in-depth review of autonomy within the US, see: Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of Biomedical Ethics . Oxford University Press.

[8] Sherley v. Sebelius , 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011), citing 45 C.F.R. 46.204(b) and [42 U.S.C. § 289g(b)]. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6c690438a9b43dd685257a64004ebf99/$file/11-5241-1391178.pdf

[9] Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, H. R. 810, 109 th Cong. (2001). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr810/text ; Bush, G. W. (2006, July 19). Message to the House of Representatives . National Archives and Records Administration. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-5.html

[10] National Archives and Records Administration. (2009, March 9). Executive order 13505 -- removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells . National Archives and Records Administration. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/removing-barriers-responsible-scientific-research-involving-human-stem-cells

[11] Hurlbut, W. B. (2006). Science, Religion, and the Politics of Stem Cells.  Social Research ,  73 (3), 819–834. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971854

[12] Akpa-Inyang, Francis & Chima, Sylvester. (2021). South African traditional values and beliefs regarding informed consent and limitations of the principle of respect for autonomy in African communities: a cross-cultural qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics . 22. 10.1186/s12910-021-00678-4.

[13] Source for further reading: Tangwa G. B. (2007). Moral status of embryonic stem cells: perspective of an African villager. Bioethics , 21(8), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00582.x , see also Mnisi, F. M. (2020). An African analysis based on ethics of Ubuntu - are human embryonic stem cell patents morally justifiable? African Insight , 49 (4).

[14] Jecker, N. S., & Atuire, C. (2021). Bioethics in Africa: A contextually enlightened analysis of three cases. Developing World Bioethics , 22 (2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12324

[15] Jecker, N. S., & Atuire, C. (2021). Bioethics in Africa: A contextually enlightened analysis of three cases. Developing World Bioethics, 22(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12324

[16] Jackson, C.S., Pepper, M.S. Opportunities and barriers to establishing a cell therapy programme in South Africa.  Stem Cell Res Ther   4 , 54 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt204 ; Pew Research Center. (2014, May 1). Public health a major priority in African nations . Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/05/01/public-health-a-major-priority-in-african-nations/

[17] Department of Health Republic of South Africa. (2021). Health Research Priorities (revised) for South Africa 2021-2024 . National Health Research Strategy. https://www.health.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/National-Health-Research-Priorities-2021-2024.pdf

[18] Oosthuizen, H. (2013). Legal and Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research in South Africa. In: Beran, R. (eds) Legal and Forensic Medicine. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32338-6_80 , see also: Gaobotse G (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[19] United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. (1998). Tunisia: Information on the status of Christian conversions in Tunisia . UNHCR Web Archive. https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230522142618/https://www.refworld.org/docid/3df0be9a2.html

[20] Gaobotse, G. (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[21] Kooli, C. Review of assisted reproduction techniques, laws, and regulations in Muslim countries.  Middle East Fertil Soc J   24 , 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-019-0011-0 ; Gaobotse, G. (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[22] Pang M. C. (1999). Protective truthfulness: the Chinese way of safeguarding patients in informed treatment decisions. Journal of medical ethics , 25(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.25.3.247

[23] Wang, L., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2021). Bioethics in China’s biosecurity law: Forms, effects, and unsettled issues. Journal of law and the biosciences , 8(1).  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab019 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab019/6299199

[24] Wang, Y., Xue, Y., & Guo, H. D. (2022). Intervention effects of traditional Chinese medicine on stem cell therapy of myocardial infarction.  Frontiers in pharmacology ,  13 , 1013740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1013740

[25] Li, X.-T., & Zhao, J. (2012). Chapter 4: An Approach to the Nature of Qi in TCM- Qi and Bioenergy. In Recent Advances in Theories and Practice of Chinese Medicine (p. 79). InTech.

[26] Luo, D., Xu, Z., Wang, Z., & Ran, W. (2021). China's Stem Cell Research and Knowledge Levels of Medical Practitioners and Students.  Stem cells international ,  2021 , 6667743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6667743

[27] Luo, D., Xu, Z., Wang, Z., & Ran, W. (2021). China's Stem Cell Research and Knowledge Levels of Medical Practitioners and Students.  Stem cells international ,  2021 , 6667743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6667743

[28] Zhang, J. Y. (2017). Lost in translation? accountability and governance of Clinical Stem Cell Research in China. Regenerative Medicine , 12 (6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2017-0035

[29] Wang, L., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2021). Bioethics in China’s biosecurity law: Forms, effects, and unsettled issues. Journal of law and the biosciences , 8(1).  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab019 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab019/6299199

[30] Chen, H., Wei, T., Wang, H.  et al.  Association of China’s two-child policy with changes in number of births and birth defects rate, 2008–2017.  BMC Public Health   22 , 434 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12839-0

[31] Azuma, K. Regulatory Landscape of Regenerative Medicine in Japan.  Curr Stem Cell Rep   1 , 118–128 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-015-0012-6

[32] Harris, R. (2005, May 19). Researchers Report Advance in Stem Cell Production . NPR. https://www.npr.org/2005/05/19/4658967/researchers-report-advance-in-stem-cell-production

[33] Park, S. (2012). South Korea steps up stem-cell work.  Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.10565

[34] Resnik, D. B., Shamoo, A. E., & Krimsky, S. (2006). Fraudulent human embryonic stem cell research in South Korea: lessons learned.  Accountability in research ,  13 (1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620600634193 .

[35] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics, 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

[36] Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies.  https://www.aabb.org/regulatory-and-advocacy/regulatory-affairs/regulatory-for-cellular-therapies/international-competent-authorities/saudi-arabia

[37] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: Interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia.  BMC medical ethics ,  21 (1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

[38] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: Interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics , 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

Culturally, autonomy practices follow a relational autonomy approach based on a paternalistic deontological health care model. The adherence to strict international research policies and religious pillars within the regulatory environment is a great foundation for research ethics. However, there is a need to develop locally targeted ethics approaches for research (as called for in Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics, 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6), this decision-making approach may help advise a research decision model. For more on the clinical cultural autonomy approaches, see: Alabdullah, Y. Y., Alzaid, E., Alsaad, S., Alamri, T., Alolayan, S. W., Bah, S., & Aljoudi, A. S. (2022). Autonomy and paternalism in Shared decision‐making in a Saudi Arabian tertiary hospital: A cross‐sectional study. Developing World Bioethics , 23 (3), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12355 ; Bukhari, A. A. (2017). Universal Principles of Bioethics and Patient Rights in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/124; Ladha, S., Nakshawani, S. A., Alzaidy, A., & Tarab, B. (2023, October 26). Islam and Bioethics: What We All Need to Know . Columbia University School of Professional Studies. https://sps.columbia.edu/events/islam-and-bioethics-what-we-all-need-know

[39] Ababneh, M. A., Al-Azzam, S. I., Alzoubi, K., Rababa’h, A., & Al Demour, S. (2021). Understanding and attitudes of the Jordanian public about clinical research ethics.  Research Ethics ,  17 (2), 228-241.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120966779

[40] Ababneh, M. A., Al-Azzam, S. I., Alzoubi, K., Rababa’h, A., & Al Demour, S. (2021). Understanding and attitudes of the Jordanian public about clinical research ethics.  Research Ethics ,  17 (2), 228-241.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120966779

[41] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East.  Nature  510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[42] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East.  Nature  510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[43] The EU’s definition of autonomy relates to the capacity for creating ideas, moral insight, decisions, and actions without constraint, personal responsibility, and informed consent. However, the EU views autonomy as not completely able to protect individuals and depends on other principles, such as dignity, which “expresses the intrinsic worth and fundamental equality of all human beings.” Rendtorff, J.D., Kemp, P. (2019). Four Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J. (eds) Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_3

[44] Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No. 164) https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=164 (forbidding the creation of embryos for research purposes only, and suggests embryos in vitro have protections.); Also see Drabiak-Syed B. K. (2013). New President, New Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy: Comparative International Perspectives and Embryonic Stem Cell Research Laws in France.  Biotechnology Law Report ,  32 (6), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2013.9865

[45] Rendtorff, J.D., Kemp, P. (2019). Four Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J. (eds) Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_3

[46] Tomuschat, C., Currie, D. P., Kommers, D. P., & Kerr, R. (Trans.). (1949, May 23). Basic law for the Federal Republic of Germany. https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf

[47] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Germany . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-germany

[48] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Finland . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-finland

[49] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Spain . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-spain

[50] Some sources to consider regarding ethics models or regulatory oversights of other cultures not covered:

Kara MA. Applicability of the principle of respect for autonomy: the perspective of Turkey. J Med Ethics. 2007 Nov;33(11):627-30. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.017400. PMID: 17971462; PMCID: PMC2598110.

Ugarte, O. N., & Acioly, M. A. (2014). The principle of autonomy in Brazil: one needs to discuss it ...  Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes ,  41 (5), 374–377. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912014005013

Bharadwaj, A., & Glasner, P. E. (2012). Local cells, global science: The rise of embryonic stem cell research in India . Routledge.

For further research on specific European countries regarding ethical and regulatory framework, we recommend this database: Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Europe . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-europe   

[51] Klitzman, R. (2006). Complications of culture in obtaining informed consent. The American Journal of Bioethics, 6(1), 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160500394671 see also: Ekmekci, P. E., & Arda, B. (2017). Interculturalism and Informed Consent: Respecting Cultural Differences without Breaching Human Rights.  Cultura (Iasi, Romania) ,  14 (2), 159–172.; For why trust is important in research, see also: Gray, B., Hilder, J., Macdonald, L., Tester, R., Dowell, A., & Stubbe, M. (2017). Are research ethics guidelines culturally competent?  Research Ethics ,  13 (1), 23-41.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116650235

[52] The Qur'an  (M. Khattab, Trans.). (1965). Al-Mu’minun, 23: 12-14. https://quran.com/23

[53] Lenfest, Y. (2017, December 8). Islam and the beginning of human life . Bill of Health. https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2017/12/08/islam-and-the-beginning-of-human-life/

[54] Aksoy, S. (2005). Making regulations and drawing up legislation in Islamic countries under conditions of uncertainty, with special reference to embryonic stem cell research. Journal of Medical Ethics , 31: 399-403.; see also: Mahmoud, Azza. "Islamic Bioethics: National Regulations and Guidelines of Human Stem Cell Research in the Muslim World." Master's thesis, Chapman University, 2022. https://doi.org/10.36837/ chapman.000386

[55] Rashid, R. (2022). When does Ensoulment occur in the Human Foetus. Journal of the British Islamic Medical Association , 12 (4). ISSN 2634 8071. https://www.jbima.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2-Ethics-3_-Ensoulment_Rafaqat.pdf.

[56] Sivaraman, M. & Noor, S. (2017). Ethics of embryonic stem cell research according to Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, and Islamic religions: perspective from Malaysia. Asian Biomedicine,8(1) 43-52.  https://doi.org/10.5372/1905-7415.0801.260

[57] Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.),  Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues  (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[58] Lecso, P. A. (1991). The Bodhisattva Ideal and Organ Transplantation.  Journal of Religion and Health ,  30 (1), 35–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27510629 ; Bodhisattva, S. (n.d.). The Key of Becoming a Bodhisattva . A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life. http://www.buddhism.org/Sutras/2/BodhisattvaWay.htm

[59] There is no explicit religious reference to when life begins or how to conduct research that interacts with the concept of life. However, these are relevant verses pertaining to how the fetus is viewed. (( King James Bible . (1999). Oxford University Press. (original work published 1769))

Jerimiah 1: 5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee…”

In prophet Jerimiah’s insight, God set him apart as a person known before childbirth, a theme carried within the Psalm of David.

Psalm 139: 13-14 “…Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…”

These verses demonstrate David’s respect for God as an entity that would know of all man’s thoughts and doings even before birth.

[60] It should be noted that abortion is not supported as well.

[61] The Vatican. (1987, February 22). Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day . Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

[62] The Vatican. (2000, August 25). Declaration On the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells . Pontifical Academy for Life. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20000824_cellule-staminali_en.html ; Ohara, N. (2003). Ethical Consideration of Experimentation Using Living Human Embryos: The Catholic Church’s Position on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology . Retrieved from https://article.imrpress.com/journal/CEOG/30/2-3/pii/2003018/77-81.pdf.

[63] Smith, G. A. (2022, May 23). Like Americans overall, Catholics vary in their abortion views, with regular mass attenders most opposed . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/05/23/like-americans-overall-catholics-vary-in-their-abortion-views-with-regular-mass-attenders-most-opposed/

[64] Rosner, F., & Reichman, E. (2002). Embryonic stem cell research in Jewish law. Journal of halacha and contemporary society , (43), 49–68.; Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.),  Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues  (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[65] Schenker J. G. (2008). The beginning of human life: status of embryo. Perspectives in Halakha (Jewish Religious Law).  Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics ,  25 (6), 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9221-6

[66] Ruttenberg, D. (2020, May 5). The Torah of Abortion Justice (annotated source sheet) . Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/234926.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

[67] Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.),  Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues  (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[68] Gert, B. (2007). Common morality: Deciding what to do . Oxford Univ. Press.

[69] World Medical Association (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA , 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053 Declaration of Helsinki – WMA – The World Medical Association .; see also: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979).  The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

[70] Zakarin Safier, L., Gumer, A., Kline, M., Egli, D., & Sauer, M. V. (2018). Compensating human subjects providing oocytes for stem cell research: 9-year experience and outcomes.  Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics ,  35 (7), 1219–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1171-z https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6063839/ see also: Riordan, N. H., & Paz Rodríguez, J. (2021). Addressing concerns regarding associated costs, transparency, and integrity of research in recent stem cell trial. Stem Cells Translational Medicine , 10 (12), 1715–1716. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.21-0234

[71] Klitzman, R., & Sauer, M. V. (2009). Payment of egg donors in stem cell research in the USA.  Reproductive biomedicine online ,  18 (5), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60002-8

[72] Krosin, M. T., Klitzman, R., Levin, B., Cheng, J., & Ranney, M. L. (2006). Problems in comprehension of informed consent in rural and peri-urban Mali, West Africa.  Clinical trials (London, England) ,  3 (3), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774506cn150oa

[73] Veatch, Robert M.  Hippocratic, Religious, and Secular Medical Ethics: The Points of Conflict . Georgetown University Press, 2012.

[74] Msoroka, M. S., & Amundsen, D. (2018). One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity.  Research Ethics ,  14 (3), 1-17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739939

[75] Pirzada, N. (2022). The Expansion of Turkey’s Medical Tourism Industry.  Voices in Bioethics ,  8 . https://doi.org/10.52214/vib.v8i.9894

[76] Stem Cell Tourism: False Hope for Real Money . Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI). (2023). https://hsci.harvard.edu/stem-cell-tourism , See also: Bissassar, M. (2017). Transnational Stem Cell Tourism: An ethical analysis.  Voices in Bioethics ,  3 . https://doi.org/10.7916/vib.v3i.6027

[77] Song, P. (2011) The proliferation of stem cell therapies in post-Mao China: problematizing ethical regulation,  New Genetics and Society , 30:2, 141-153, DOI:  10.1080/14636778.2011.574375

[78] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East.  Nature  510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[79] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2024). Standards in stem cell research . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/5-standards-in-stem-cell-research

[80] Benjamin, R. (2013). People’s science bodies and rights on the Stem Cell Frontier . Stanford University Press.

Mifrah Hayath

SM Candidate Harvard Medical School, MS Biotechnology Johns Hopkins University

Olivia Bowers

MS Bioethics Columbia University (Disclosure: affiliated with Voices in Bioethics)

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .