Perception on Working Conditions and Utilization of Clinical Research Coordinators among Investigators and Sponsors.
10.12793/jkscpt.2012.20.1.60
- Author:
Ihn Sook JEONG
1
;
Sangmin CHOE
;
Ji Hyang YOON
;
Eun Hwa YUN
Author Information
1. College of Nursing, Pusan National University, Korea. jeongis@pusan.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Clinical Trial ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Employment;
Salary;
Workload;
Utilization;
Clinical research coordinator
- MeSH:
Calcium Hydroxide;
Electronics;
Electrons;
Employment;
Humans;
Motivation;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Research Personnel;
Salaries and Fringe Benefits;
Zinc Oxide
- From:Journal of Korean Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
2012;20(1):60-73
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: This study was aimed to investigate the perception on working conditions and utilization of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) among investigators and sponsors. METHODS: The participants of this cross-section study were 114 investigators and 138 sponsors including clinical research associates (CRAs) who have worked with CRCs. Data was collected with paper or electronic form of self-administered questionnaires and analyzed with descriptive statistics and chi2 test or t test. RESULTS: Among investigators and sponsors, 56.1 % and 95.0 % perceived regular full-time positions as proper type of CRC employment, respectively. Those who perceived monthly salary with incentive as proper payment system were 67.5 % of investigators and 68.8 % of sponsors. The proper salary for 2-year CRCs and 5-year CRCs were significantly higher in sponsors than investigators. Investigators perceived CRCs could handle 3 studies as the same time and 5 studies per year. In regard to the difficulty in utilizing CRCs, 68.4 % of investigators perceived lack of experienced CRCs and 84.8 % of sponsors did frequent turnover. Those who responded pooling CRCs by hospital or clinical trial centers as a good solution to hire CRCs easily were 81.6 % of investigators and 58.0 % of sponsors. CONCLUSION: Almost all investigators and sponsors perceived CRCs were helpful for improving the quality of clinical trials. We recommend each institution or clinical trial centers could introduce the central CRCs' employment and management with proper salary and workload based on the results to maintain experienced CRCs and lessen the turnover of CRCs.
