• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Survey Suggests MPs Lacking in Knowledge About Canadian Health Research

Posted on: Monday, 22 October 2007, 21:00 CDT

By Helen Branswell, Medical Reporter, THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO - A new survey suggests members of Parliament appreciate the importance of health research, but don't see it as a vote-grabber when they head to the polls.

That and other findings of the survey suggest there is a knowledge gap on Parliament Hill when it comes to the importance of health research, how much money the federal government spends on it and the role played by the federal agency set up to fund health research, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

"I feel that their knowledge of health research wasn't as good as I'd like it to be," said one of the authors, Dr. Patrick McGrath of Dalhousie University in Halifax. McGrath admitted, however, that he is aware MPs have to be generalists because of the plethora of issues that cross their desks.

McGrath and colleagues from Dalhousie designed and conducted a survey aimed at polling all members of Parliament on issues pertaining to health research. But despite contacting each member's office at least five times to ask if either the member or designated senior aide would take part, only one-third of the country's 308 MPs took part.

(The authors noted the Bloc Quebecois has a policy of not participating in surveys. And while eight Bloc MPs did complete the 15-minute questionnaire, the authors warned such a small sample couldn't be taken to represent the views of the entire Bloc caucus.)

The resulting scientific article was published Tuesday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Eighty-four per cent of the MPs (or designated staff members) who took part were aware of CIHR, but 32 per cent of them admitted they knew nothing about its role.

The participants ranked health care as the most important issue facing the country - topping security issues, economic growth and employment, the environment and Afghanistan, to name a few.

And within the topic of health-care, they rated health research as the second most important funding priority, giving it an 8.2 rating on a scale of 10. However, they felt voters placed far less value on health research funding, and estimated voters would give it a 3.8 rating out of 10.

"I guess it tells us that there's a disconnect between one's gut feeling that funding health research is important but then the perception of how the voting public feels," said Dr. Christopher Paige, vice-president of research at the University Health Network, a conglomeration of three teaching hospitals in Toronto.

"I think that's wrong. I think the voting public in fact does want health research to be well supported in Canada."

Paige, who was not involved in the research, noted that last year the umbrella organization Research Canada commissioned a small survey to look at the public's attitude towards health research. It found 91 per cent of respondents wanted more government investment in health and medical research. And 86 per cent said Canada should be a global leader in health and medical research.

"Here we have our members of Parliament thinking it's a wonderful idea to support health research. The voters think it's wonderful. And yet there's a disconnect there - the members of Parliament feel that the public doesn't think it's a good idea. Won't get them votes," lamented McGrath, a professor of psychology, pediatrics and psychiatry at Dalhousie.

The survey revealed other discrepancies between perceptions and realities.

When asked to estimate how much federal and provincial governments (combined) contribute to health research each year, they estimated three per cent of total spending. On this the NDP was more savvy; its participants estimated 1.6 per cent.

When told the actual total was 1.3 of total government spending, 78 per cent of respondents deemed that figure to be too low.

Paige, who wrote a commentary on the issue for the journal, said the findings should be "a call to arms" for the scientific community.

"I think it just reinforces something that we do know in our community, that we have to be more effective at communicating how research is funded and what the key issues are. It's really as simple as that," he said.

He suggested a series of changes to funding regimes, including establishing a network of accredited teaching hospitals which would be eligible for federal and provincial funding to support the research portion of their mandates.

Source: Canadian Press

More News in this Category