Location of Repository

Paying clinicians to join clinical trials : a review of guidelines and interview study of trialists

By James Raftery, Christine Kerr, Sheila Hawker and John Powell

Abstract

Background: The motivations of clinicians to participate in clinical trials have been little studied. This project explored the potential role of payment for participation in publicly funded clinical trials in the UK. The aims were to review relevant guidelines and to collate and analyse views of clinical trialists on the role of payments and other factors that motivated clinicians to join clinical trials.\ud Methods: Review of guidelines governing payments to clinicians for recruitment to trials. Semistructured\ud interviews with a range of NHS clinical trial leaders, analysed using qualititative methods.\ud Results: While UK guidelines had little to say specifically on payments linked to recruitment, all payments have become highly regulated and increasingly transparent. Interview participants believed that expenses arising from research should be covered. Payments in excess of expenses\ud were seen as likely to increase participation but with the risk of reducing quality. Motivations such\ud as interest in the topic, the scope for patients to benefit and intellectual curiosity were considered more important. Barriers to involvement included bureaucracy and lack of time.\ud Discussion: Limited scope exists for paying clinicians over-and-above the cost of their time to be involved in research. Most trialists favour full payment of all expenses related to research.\ud Conclusion: Payment of clinicians beyond expenses is perceived to be a less important motivating factor than researching important, salient questions, and facilitating research by reducing bureaucracy and delay

Topics: R1
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd.
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:523

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2007). (the STEPS group): Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technology Assessment doi
  2. (1993). A: Factors affecting general practitioners' recruitment of patients into a prospective study. Fam Pract doi
  3. (1990). A: Recruitment to a prospective breast conservation trial: why are so few patients randomised? doi
  4. (2006). A: Systematic Review of Barriers, Modifiers and Benefits Involved in Participation in Cancer Trials.
  5. (2006). Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries: Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry. London doi
  6. (2006). Association: British Medical Association – Ethical considerations. doi
  7. (1998). Council: MRC Clinical Trials Series, MRC guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trials. London doi
  8. (2002). Council: Research: The Role and Responsibilities of Doctors. London doi
  9. (2007). Doing grounded theory. In Analysing quantitative data in psychology Edited by: Lyons E, Coyle A. doi
  10. (1999). Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technology Assessment doi
  11. (2000). Fox SA: Problems in recruiting community based physicians for health services research. doi
  12. Health: Best research for best health. doi
  13. (2000). Health: Commercial sponsorship- ethical standards for the NHS. London
  14. (2001). Health: Governance arrangements for NHS research ethics committees. London doi
  15. (2001). Health: Guidance for R&D Managers in NHS Trusts and Clinical Research Departments in the Pharmaceutical Industry. London
  16. (2006). Health: National Health Service income generation – Best practice: Revised guidance on income generation in the NHS. London
  17. (2005). Health: Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, London 2nd edition.
  18. (1984). Horwitz RI: Applying results of randomised trials to clinical practice: impact of losses before randomisation. doi
  19. (2007). Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev doi
  20. (2005). Payment to healthcare professionals for patient recruitment to trials: a systematic review. doi
  21. Payment to healthcare professionals for patient recruitment to trials: systematic review and qualitative study. Health Technology Assessment 2008, 12(10): [http://www.ncchta.org/project/hta pubs.asp]. doi
  22. (1999). Qualitataive data analysis software.
  23. (2002). Report: Pharmaceutical Industry Competitive Task Force.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.