Resource management and capacity planning for clinical trial sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Since 2020, the number of registered clinical trials has surged by over 30%, significantly increasing the demand for skilled coordinators. Despite this growth, a national shortage of qualified coordinators remains, driven by escalating responsibilities and workloads. Effective resource management is crucial for retention. While the Ontario Protocol Assessment Level (OPAL) helps quantify trial complexity, it overlooks key factors such as organizational structure and budget constraints that impact coordinator productivity. This project aims to refine the OPAL score by integrating it with longitudinal coordinator effort data, improving resource allocation, operational efficiency, and job satisfaction, thereby reducing burnout and turnover. Aim: The aim of this study was to reduce burnout and turnover, ultimately contributing to the overall success of clinical trials. Methods: Actively enrolling interventional studies with corresponding coordinator effort tracking from June 1, 2022, to December 1, 2022, were included in the database. Protocols were graded using an adapted protocol assessment tool. Descriptive statistics compared protocol characteristics to the adapted assessment score and tracked coordinator hours, while Student&rsquo;s t-test and univariate analysis evaluated differences in continuous variables. Linear regression analysis assessed the association between the adapted score and the coordinator effort. Results: Seven protocols were analyzed: five (71%) were federally funded, two (29%) were industry-sponsored; four (57%) were behavioral interventions, and three (43%) were drug studies. Significant differences were observed between industry-sponsored and federally funded studies (7.25 &plusmn; 1.77 vs. 6.45 &plusmn; 1.65; P < 0.0001) and between behavioral interventions and drug studies (6.88 &plusmn; 1.56 vs. 6.42 &plusmn; 1.91; P < 0.0001). Linear regression revealed the adapted OPAL score significantly predicted coordinator hours (&beta; = 77.22; P = 0.01; R2 = 0.78). Conclusion: The adapted protocol complexity scores predict coordinator effort, aiding in capacity assessment and objective project distribution. Relevance for Patients: The findings from this project can inform more precise resource allocation, potentially leading to higher-quality studies and enhanced participant safety.&nbsp;
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".