Sanofi’s clinical-trial push hits a GP reality check

New research from Sanofi presented at the Australian Public Health Conference this week points to an addressable opportunity to increase clinical trial participation and representation across Australia, with general practitioners (GPs) potentially playing a pivotal role in closing the gap.

A survey of 2,000 Australian adults found that 67.5% would be willing to participate in a clinical trial if given the opportunity. Yet 73.6% said they had never discussed clinical trials with their doctor, while just 11.1% reported that their GP had raised the topic occasionally or often.

The findings point to a disconnect between Australians’ willingness to participate in clinical research and the opportunities they are given to consider it.

The data also reveals important differences across communities. Rural and remote Australians showed the highest responsiveness to participation enablers overall, with 72.8% identifying transparent information as a factor that would encourage them to participate, while 55.6% cited a recommendation from a doctor.

“There is no one face of clinical trials. We need representation from all members of the community to ensure research reflects the diversity of patients who will ultimately benefit from new treatments,” said Lucy McNicol, Community Outreach & Engagement Manager at Sanofi.

Sanofi invests around A$20 million annually in Australian clinical trials across areas including oncology, rare diseases, rare blood disorders and neurology. Its Queensland Translational Science Hub, founded by Dr Iris Depaz (1976 – 2024), has contracted 26 clinical-trial sites and seven laboratory partners across Australia.

GPs occupy a pivotal gatekeeper role within the health care system, yet their involvement in medical research varies. Many clinical trials are conducted primarily through non-GP specialists or research institutions, leaving general practice less directly engaged in the research process.

Evidence from a recent qualitative study points to shortcomings in communication between clinical trial teams and GPs about patients participating in research.

“I think that was about six to eight weeks after the patient started taking medication from the trial until I received the first letter from the specialist,” said one GP interviewed for the qualitative study.

Clinical trial teams sometimes contact GPs, but often only when they needed confirmation of changes to a patient’s medication or assistance ordering and following up further investigations.

“It’s not a drug I’m going to be familiar with. I don’t know how it interacts with anything else. And that’s the first time I hear about it. So, I don’t get any warning or any background information about it. So that’s a bit of a problem,” said a GP interviewed for the study.

Another GP described having to manage trial-related requests without knowing who was coordinating the research or what the underlying study was seeking to investigate.

“I had to send off the results and things to one person from the trial where the patient’s just on a treatment but I have no idea who the trial coordinator is or whose investigators are or I don’t even know what the research question is,” said another GP interviewed for the qualitative study.

Potential ways to strengthen communication between primary care and clinical trial teams included using My Health Record to facilitate the exchange of relevant information, and making inclusion of a patient’s GP a requirement for enrolment in a clinical trial.

However, GP feedback also highlighted significant practical barriers to involving general practices more directly in conducting clinical trials, particularly the competing demands on time and the financial constraints of private practice.

“Because general practice is a private entity as opposed to a clinical trial in a hospital where the specialist is getting their wage, I think another big barrier in general practice is just time to do it and I think cost would be a factor as well,” said one GP participating in the study.

The opportunity cost associated with research was another concern, particularly for GPs considering an academic career or involvement in research alongside clinical work.

“If you want to look into an academic career, I guess our guidelines always need updating and it takes so long for research to go into guidelines. I guess you would lose that on income if you take the time to do trials and things,” said another GP included in the study.

When asked whether they would consider actively leading clinical trials in primary care, most GPs interviewed in the qualitative study were not interested, with workload and personal preferences emerging as key considerations.

“Personally, I’m not super into research. And we’re so busy with other stuff…I usually just trying to keep my head above water with work as it is,” another GP participating in the research said.

Another GP questioned whether taking on clinical trials would require additional hours that would be difficult to accommodate within an already demanding workload.

“Unlikely. Do I have to stay back more? Do I have to come in early? Do I have to book out a whole day, so I don’t know,” said another GP involved in the research.

The feedback highlights an important distinction between GPs acting as a conduit to clinical research and taking on responsibility for leading trials themselves. While direct trial leadership may be constrained by time, cost and workload pressures, GPs may still have an important role in improving patient awareness and access to clinical research.

Sanofi is the only pharmaceutical company sponsoring the Australian Public Health Conference, hosted by the Public Health Association Australia (PHAA).

To help address the participation and representation gap, The Faces of Clinical Trials campaign is now available to healthcare professionals via Sanofi Campus. The campaign is designed to boost representation and participation in clinical trials, with a toolkit providing GPs and other healthcare professionals with accessible information and resources to confidently raise clinical trials with patients.

“The barrier to participation isn’t patient reluctance – it’s visibility. GPs are perfectly positioned to turn this gap into opportunity, and by equipping them with the right resources, we hope to unlock substantial increases in both participation and representation across all communities,” McNicol said.

The broader research ecosystem also includes Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs), which have been established in Australia since the early 2000s to engage GPs and other primary healthcare providers and build research capacity, despite a lack of sustainable funding.

Greater integration of research education into GP training programs, alongside stronger connections through PBRNs, could help build a more research-capable primary care workforce and establish stronger links between general practice and clinical research.

In reimagining healthcare across the entire patient journey, Health Industry Hub^TM is the only one-stop-hub uniting the diversity of the Pharma, MedTech, Diagnostics & Biotech sectors to inspire meaningful change.

The Health Industry Hub^TM content is copyright protected. Access is available under individual user licenses. Please click here to subscribe and visit T&Cs here.