It's not only the efficacy of the compound that determines whether or not a product is ultimately approved. The quality of your development staff also makes a difference. The increase in volume, scope, and complexity of clinical trials has brought the issue of development staff quality to a head. There simply aren't enough high-quality, experience, and well-trained staff to go around. And the impact of this is greater for some positions than for others.
This research details current trends in clinical development staff quality:
- Is it improving?
- Is it different for different job titles?
- Who is struggling with staff quality more, sponsors or CROs?
- What impact does this have on the quality of clinical development?
- How are staff quality dynamics changing how clinical development is conducted?
This report contains the following five sections.
1. Sources of Staff
2. Differences in Outsourced and In-house Studies
3. Outsourcing Engagement Models-Current and Future
4. Sponsor Oversight of Outsourced Studies
5. Staff Quality
As always, an appendix of Charts and Graphs is also included within this report with responses to all questions asked in this study.
What Readers Will Learn:
Sponsors and CROs alike can use this research to understand how the industry's talent pool affects clinical development; benchmark their own company's staff quality and experience against industry norms and expectations; and to anticipate the changes yet to come.
Other Measurements In This Report:
Purchasers of this report also purchased:
Sample Charts & Graphs: