The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units

Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units
Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units

BACKGROUND: The costs of medical research are a concern. Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) need to better understand variations in the costs of their activities.

METHODS: Representatives of ten CTUs and two grant-awarding bodies pooled their experiences in discussions over 1.5 years. Five of the CTUs provided estimates of, and written justification for, costs associated with CTU activities required to implement an identical protocol. The protocol described a 5.5-year, nonpharmacological randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at 20 centres. Direct and indirect costs, the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) and the FTEs attracting overheads were compared and qualitative methods (unstructured interviews and thematic analysis) were used to interpret the results. Four members of the group (funding-body representatives or award panel members) reviewed the justification statements for transparency and information content. Separately, 163 activities common to trials were assigned to roles used by nine CTUs; the consistency of role delineation was assessed by Cohen's κ.

RESULTS: Median full economic cost of CTU activities was £769,637 (range: £661,112 to £1,383,323). Indirect costs varied considerably, accounting for between 15% and 59% (median 35%) of the full economic cost of the grant. Excluding one CTU, which used external statisticians, the total number of FTEs ranged from 2.0 to 3.0; total FTEs attracting overheads ranged from 0.3 to 2.0. Variation in directly incurred staff costs depended on whether CTUs: supported particular roles from core funding rather than grants; opted not to cost certain activities into the grant; assigned clerical or data management tasks to research or administrative staff; employed extensive on-site monitoring strategies (also the main source of variation in non-staff costs). Funders preferred written justifications of costs that described both FTEs and indicative tasks for funded roles, with itemised non-staff costs. Consistency in role delineation was fair (κ = 0.21-0.40) for statisticians/data managers and poor for other roles (κ < 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS: Some variation in costs is due to factors outside the control of CTUs such as access to core funding and levels of indirect costs levied by host institutions. Research is needed on strategies to control costs appropriately, especially the implementation of risk-based monitoring strategies.

Journal Article
1745-6215
Hind, Daniel
d0246cbf-e8b6-45c2-9412-76e0988852f3
Reeves, Barnaby C.
d9e20947-f0e7-4c1f-99a5-419388df45fb
Bathers, Sarah
2b15af15-8928-40ae-b1d0-8b7ed159b0c3
Bray, Christopher
37e996ba-e884-4fc4-beca-3f6de8c3c378
Corkhill, Andrea
e74ed394-38fb-4bfb-883d-681b2aeaf931
Hayward, Christopher
447fc738-9dcc-4f03-9731-ded730ee2eed
Harper, Lynda
f8bca7c5-6255-4362-b7ba-a8fae2d053fe
Napp, Vicky
910bf1cf-510a-4e61-9081-25f6fa8fcbc0
Norrie, John
d648d104-39a0-481f-af0f-9a7209d50fb5
Speed, Chris
86b91777-0f09-4b62-a0f0-19be3e64b84a
Tremain, Liz
a8b2917b-73d8-4fb8-bc05-413f2a6265f3
Keat, Nicola
78d02cd5-4379-47a9-a86e-594ad1fdafe7
Bradburn, Mike
c845a405-6815-49e3-a94d-b7489263d0f0
Hind, Daniel
d0246cbf-e8b6-45c2-9412-76e0988852f3
Reeves, Barnaby C.
d9e20947-f0e7-4c1f-99a5-419388df45fb
Bathers, Sarah
2b15af15-8928-40ae-b1d0-8b7ed159b0c3
Bray, Christopher
37e996ba-e884-4fc4-beca-3f6de8c3c378
Corkhill, Andrea
e74ed394-38fb-4bfb-883d-681b2aeaf931
Hayward, Christopher
447fc738-9dcc-4f03-9731-ded730ee2eed
Harper, Lynda
f8bca7c5-6255-4362-b7ba-a8fae2d053fe
Napp, Vicky
910bf1cf-510a-4e61-9081-25f6fa8fcbc0
Norrie, John
d648d104-39a0-481f-af0f-9a7209d50fb5
Speed, Chris
86b91777-0f09-4b62-a0f0-19be3e64b84a
Tremain, Liz
a8b2917b-73d8-4fb8-bc05-413f2a6265f3
Keat, Nicola
78d02cd5-4379-47a9-a86e-594ad1fdafe7
Bradburn, Mike
c845a405-6815-49e3-a94d-b7489263d0f0

Hind, Daniel, Reeves, Barnaby C., Bathers, Sarah, Bray, Christopher, Corkhill, Andrea, Hayward, Christopher, Harper, Lynda, Napp, Vicky, Norrie, John, Speed, Chris, Tremain, Liz, Keat, Nicola and Bradburn, Mike (2017) Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units. Trials, 18 (1), [203]. (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1934-3).

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The costs of medical research are a concern. Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) need to better understand variations in the costs of their activities.

METHODS: Representatives of ten CTUs and two grant-awarding bodies pooled their experiences in discussions over 1.5 years. Five of the CTUs provided estimates of, and written justification for, costs associated with CTU activities required to implement an identical protocol. The protocol described a 5.5-year, nonpharmacological randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at 20 centres. Direct and indirect costs, the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) and the FTEs attracting overheads were compared and qualitative methods (unstructured interviews and thematic analysis) were used to interpret the results. Four members of the group (funding-body representatives or award panel members) reviewed the justification statements for transparency and information content. Separately, 163 activities common to trials were assigned to roles used by nine CTUs; the consistency of role delineation was assessed by Cohen's κ.

RESULTS: Median full economic cost of CTU activities was £769,637 (range: £661,112 to £1,383,323). Indirect costs varied considerably, accounting for between 15% and 59% (median 35%) of the full economic cost of the grant. Excluding one CTU, which used external statisticians, the total number of FTEs ranged from 2.0 to 3.0; total FTEs attracting overheads ranged from 0.3 to 2.0. Variation in directly incurred staff costs depended on whether CTUs: supported particular roles from core funding rather than grants; opted not to cost certain activities into the grant; assigned clerical or data management tasks to research or administrative staff; employed extensive on-site monitoring strategies (also the main source of variation in non-staff costs). Funders preferred written justifications of costs that described both FTEs and indicative tasks for funded roles, with itemised non-staff costs. Consistency in role delineation was fair (κ = 0.21-0.40) for statisticians/data managers and poor for other roles (κ < 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS: Some variation in costs is due to factors outside the control of CTUs such as access to core funding and levels of indirect costs levied by host institutions. Research is needed on strategies to control costs appropriately, especially the implementation of risk-based monitoring strategies.

Text
document4 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (406kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 10 April 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 2 May 2017
Keywords: Journal Article

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 413730
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/413730
ISSN: 1745-6215
PURE UUID: 8527e784-aff0-453c-a9cc-d31965feccc6

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 01 Sep 2017 16:31
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 14:23

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Daniel Hind
Author: Barnaby C. Reeves
Author: Sarah Bathers
Author: Christopher Bray
Author: Andrea Corkhill
Author: Christopher Hayward
Author: Lynda Harper
Author: Vicky Napp
Author: John Norrie
Author: Chris Speed
Author: Liz Tremain
Author: Nicola Keat
Author: Mike Bradburn

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×