» Articles » PMID: 17277284

Research Governance Impediments to Clinical Trials: a Retrospective Survey

Overview
Journal J R Soc Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2007 Feb 6
PMID 17277284
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: We sought to evaluate the delays, between-centre variations in practice, and opportunity costs attributable to delays in research governance approval of clinical trials in the United Kingdom.

Design: Retrospective survey.

Setting: Research and Development (R&D) departments at 50 UK National Health Service hospital trusts governing 57 hospital sites.

Participants: R&D departments participating in four randomized multicentre clinical trials coordinated by our Neurosciences Trials Unit.

Interventions: None.

Main Outcome Measures: Median delay between application and research governance approval.

Results: Only half of the R&D departments used the UK online R&D form. Only a single copy of the application was required by 96% of R&D departments. The median delay between application and research governance approval was 44 working days (inter-quartile range 23-80). A delay of >20 working days was incurred by 43 applications (75%), of which 24 (56%) were not explicable and 11 (20%) were attributable to local funding negotiations. Based on the trial randomization rates at each centre, 108 patients (17% of all patients randomized) could have been randomized during the delay, at a crude cost to funding agencies of 53,743 pounds; if a four week delay was deemed acceptable, 75 patients (12% of all patients randomized) could have been randomized during unacceptable delays, at a crude cost to funding agencies of 37,700 pounds.

Conclusions: The UK research governance system incurs unacceptably long and costly delays for clinical trials. Urgent reform is needed, including rapid design and uniform implementation of the 'bureaucracy busting' measures in Best Research for Best Health.

Citing Articles

Regulatory delays in a multinational clinical stroke trial.

de Jonge J, Reinink H, Colam B, Alpers I, Ciccone A, Csiba L Eur Stroke J. 2021; 6(2):120-127.

PMID: 34414286 PMC: 8370076. DOI: 10.1177/23969873211004845.


Design, planning and implementation lessons learnt from a surgical multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Biggs K, Hind D, Bradburn M, Swaby L, Brown S Trials. 2019; 20(1):620.

PMID: 31675992 PMC: 6823948. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3649-0.


What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct: a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK.

Duley L, Gillman A, Duggan M, Belson S, Knox J, McDonald A Trials. 2018; 19(1):15.

PMID: 29310685 PMC: 5759880. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2378-5.


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

Hind D, Reeves B, Bathers S, Bray C, Corkhill A, Hayward C Trials. 2017; 18(1):203.

PMID: 28464930 PMC: 5414193. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-1934-3.


Heterogeneity of Human Research Ethics Committees and Research Governance Offices across Australia: An observational study.

De Smit E, Kearns L, Clarke L, Dick J, Hill C, Hewitt A Australas Med J. 2016; 9(2):33-9.

PMID: 26989449 PMC: 4780210. DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2015.2587.


References
1.
Elwyn G, Seagrove A, Thorne K, Cheung W . Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. BMJ. 2005; 330(7495):847. PMC: 556088. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.330.7495.847. View

2.
Galbraith N, Hawley C, De-Souza V . Research governance: research governance approval is putting people off research. BMJ. 2006; 332(7535):238. PMC: 1352102. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7535.238-a. View

3.
Warlow C . A new NHS research strategy. Lancet. 2006; 367(9504):12-3. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)67902-6. View

4.
Thornton H . Research governance: whose idea is it?. BMJ. 2006; 332(7535):238. PMC: 1352103. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7535.238-b. View

5.
Kerrison S, McNally N, Pollock A . United Kingdom research governance strategy. BMJ. 2003; 327(7414):553-6. PMC: 192854. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.553. View