This page details all of the evidence received to date for our workstream on ‘Enhancing the use of scientific evidence to judge the potential benefits and harms of medicines’. This evidence has informed all of the workstream’s sub-projects, including the ‘Sources of evidence for assessing the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of medicines’ Working Group project, the ‘Conflicts of interest’ workshop, the two ‘Communicating evidence about medicines’ workshops, and the public dialogue activities.
The evidence gathered consists of:
- Written responses to the Academy’s call for evidence.
- Oral evidence sessions.
- A literature review on ‘How evidence is used by the public to judge risks and benefits of medicines’.
- A report of a joint workshop with the Wellcome Trust on ‘Evaluating evidence in health’, held in October 2015.
- A report of a workshop on ‘Conflicts of interest’, held in November 2015.
- A report of a roundatable on ‘Communicating evidence in the media’, held in April 2016.
- A report of a workshop on ‘Communicating evidence about medicines’, held in June 2016.
- A survey of the general public and GPs in the UK to evaluate perspectives on: trust in evidence about medicines; trust in doctors and clinical scientists to produce and use scientific evidence effectively; drivers and barriers to trust in evidence; and over- and under-medication.
- A report of deliberative public dialogue summarising discussions with the public and healthcare professionals in Glasgow, London and Leeds.
The views expressed in the following documents are those of the respective contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Academy of Medical Sciences, its Fellows, its partner organisations, nor of all the meeting participants.
In July 2015, the Academy issued a call for written evidence asking for input into all elements of the workstream. The list below includes all the responses received for which we secured permission to publish. The full list of contributors will be acknowledged in the final report.
Oral evidence sessions were organised where it was felt by the Working Group or the Oversight Group that there was a need to gather further input from experts on specific topics to inform their deliberations.
We commissioned a literature review to gain further insights into current research exploring how evidence is used by the public to judge risks and benefits of medicines, and how evidence has been talked about in previous dialogue exercises and in the science communication literature. The review was put together by Melanie Smallman at ThinkLab Ltd.
These reports do not represent a formal Academy of Medical Sciences position on the evaluation of evidence in health, conflicts of interest, or how best to communicate evidence. Rather these documents reflect the wide-ranging discussions that took place at the workshops. They fed into the Academy’s workstream on ‘Enhancing the use of scientific evidence to judge the potential harms and benefits of medicines’, including its various sub-projects.