In today's ACT Brief, we examine what genuine patient voice requires beyond buzzwords, why AI's next bottleneck is system integration not models, and how regulators across three jurisdictions are formalizing patient input requirements.
|Articles|January 6, 2014
Pay Incentives Lower in Clinical Research Organizations than in General Industry
Employees at clinical research organizations (CROs) receive lower annual and long term incentives than their counterparts in other industries.
Advertisement
A recent survey from HR+Survey Solutions on CRO Industry Global Compensation and Turnover found that CRO employees received lower incentives, both annual and long term, than their counterparts in other industries.
Highlights from the study:
- US CRO industry executives with salaries of $250,000 were eligible for “an average annual incentive of 31% of their salary and a long term incentive (LTI) of 27%,” whereas executives of similar rank in other industries were eligible for 44% annual incentives and 50% LTIs.
- CRO pay is weighted towards base salary, with it representing nearly 50% of compensation package for executives with annual incentives and LTIs of 19% and 30%, respectively
- Incentives at CROs in countries outside the U.S. were similar to those offered in the US
- Although employee turnover dropped from nearly 20% in 2011 to approximately 18%, the rate at which employees leave their jobs in the US CRO industry remained high
- Executives working for smaller companies in and outside the US are less likely to receive annual incentives than those at larger companies
You can read the full release of the study findings
Below are two infographics on employee turnover and pay incentives created by HR+Survey with results of the survey. (Click each to enlarge)
Advertisement
Related to this article
The clinical research industry talks about patient-centeredness constantly but embeds it too late, too narrowly, and without clear ownership, and the cost shows up in enrollment failures, protocol deviations, and outcomes that don't reflect what patients actually care about.
Why clinical development’s next AI bottleneck is not the model, but the system around it.
In today's ACT Brief, we examine FDA's expedited pathway for first-in-human trials, why operating model design matters more than sourcing strategy, and how early readiness signals predict trial risk.
FDA Opens Applications for Expedited IND Pilot Designed to Accelerate First-in-Human Trial Timelines
The pilot pairs drug sponsors with qualified research institutions to compress the path from drug identification to first-in-human study through rolling submission review and earlier coordination of institutional review board and site activation activities.
A Syneos Health-announced study from Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development finds no single sourcing model consistently outperforms others, pointing instead to vendor coordination, governance, and fit-for-purpose design as the real performance drivers.
Regulatory expectations for patient input in drug development have shifted from aspiration to documented methodology across three major jurisdictions.
This episode of The Human Side of Clinical Trials, hosted by Brian S. McGowan, PhD, FACEHP, chief learning officer and co-founder of ArcheMedX, Inc., and Kelly Ritch, chief operating officer of ArcheMedX, Inc., explores why training completion metrics like attendance and quiz scores fail to capture true study readiness, and how measuring both competence and confidence can reveal trial risks before enrollment even begins.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trending on Applied Clinical Trials Online
1
Lessons from Hundreds of Clinical Trials: AI’s Successes, Gaps, and Opportunities
2
The Execution Gap: Why Clinical Trial Infrastructure Has to Be Built Before AI Can Deliver
3
Benchmarking Study Finds Clinical Trial Performance Is Shaped by Operating Model Design, Not Sourcing Strategy
4
FDA Opens Applications for Expedited IND Pilot Designed to Accelerate First-in-Human Trial Timelines
5