No abstract

Purpose To respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examine participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award sites (CTSAs) and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability. Method The CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce developed and, in 2010, invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying CTSA accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted. Results Forty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78–91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); their desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to IRB review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents’ IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness. Conclusions Many CTSAs lack the necessary framework to support study accrual. Recommendations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment planning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruitment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.

Background: Identification of evidence-based factors related to status of the clinical research professional (CRP) workforce at academic medical centers (AMCs) will provide context for National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) policy considerations and guidance. The objective of this study is to explore barriers and opportunities related to the recruitment and retention of the CRP workforce. Materials and Methods: Qualitative data from a series of Un-Meeting breakout sessions and open-text survey questions were analyzed to explore barriers and recommendations for improving AMC CRP recruitment, retention and diversity. Results: While certain institutions have established competency-based frameworks for job descriptions, standardization remains generally lacking across CTSAs. AMCs report substantial increases in unfilled CRP positions leading to operational instability. Data confirmed an urgent need for closing gaps in CRP workforce at AMCs, especially for attracting, training, retaining, and diversifying qualified personnel. Improved collaboration with human resource departments, engagement with principal investigators, and overcoming both organizational and resource challenges were suggested strategies, as well as development of outreach to universities, community colleges, and high schools raising awareness of CRP career pathways. Discussion: Based on input from 130 CRP leaders at 35 CTSAs, four National Institute of General Medical Sciences’ Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program sites, along with industry and government representatives, we identified several barriers to successful recruitment and retention of a highly trained and diverse CRP workforce. Results, including securing institutional support, champions, standardizing and adopting proven national models, improving local institutional policies to facilitate CRP hiring and job progression point to potential solutions.