The Hidden Costs of Delayed Hiring in Clinical Research
In the highly regulated and time-sensitive world of clinical research, staffing gaps are more than operational hiccups—they have cascading effects that disrupt trial timelines, patient access, and financial performance.
Vacancies Are Widening the Gap
The clinical research industry is grappling with an alarming understaffing crisis. Leading sponsors have indicated that 25% of the research sites they approach are unable to take on new trials, while 80% of site leadership report that their institutions are understaffed and have struggled to recover from COVID-19 impact (Sun et. al, 2023). Essential roles such as clinical research coordinators and research nurses remain vacant for months, with principal investigator (PI) positions sometimes remaining open even longer. These prolonged vacancies strain existing teams and hinder the site’s ability to start, manage, and secure new trials effectively.
Quantifying the Financial Impact
The financial toll of delayed hiring is profound. Referencing recent prices for approved therapeutics, a delayed trial can cost a sponsor $600,000 in potential product revenue each day. A 5-month delay can cost a sponsor $90 million in potential product revenue. Extended drug development timelines delay market access and make product approval more uncertain. The impact is equally significant for research sites. Given the average site revenue earned for enrolled patients, unfilled positions that cause trial delays can cost over $300,000 in lost trial revenue per site due to inefficiencies in managing ongoing studies and the inability to enroll patients effectively.
The Ripple Effect on Patients
Beyond finances, the human cost is significant. Understaffing means fewer patients have access to potentially life-saving clinical trials. With over 80% of trials reporting delays (McDowell), the average patient wait time for trial enrollment has increased, leaving millions waiting for treatment options. It’s also important to remember that successful patient recruitment hinges on an effective clinical research team. The main reason that patients choose to enroll in and stay on trial is often due to the relationship they build with their care team. Understaffing isn’t just a people problem. It affects every aspect of clinical trials, including the aspect we care about most - patient recruitment and enrollment.
Addressing Understaffing and DEI in Clinical Research
Understaffing intersects deeply with challenges related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in clinical research hiring. Historically, clinical research has struggled to engage minority populations due to incidences of unethical practice, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. This history has left many minority communities justifiably wary of participating in clinical trials, with trust further undermined by a lack of diverse representation among clinical research staff.
Patients are often more likely to trust and engage with clinical trials when they see themselves represented among the staff conducting the research (Chatters et al., 2024). Yet, the current workforce does not reflect the populations most in need of equitable access to these studies. Less than 40% of clinical trial staff identify as non-white (Getz et al., 2022), and less than 5% of clinical trial participants identify as non-white (Cramer, 2020). This disparity limits the ability to recruit diverse participants and ensure trials produce generalizable and equitable outcomes. It’s important to note that diversity includes more than just ethnicity, and extends to gender, sex, and socioeconomic status.
Adding to this challenge is the underrepresentation of international medical graduates and individuals with non-traditional backgrounds in the clinical research space. These candidates often possess transferable skills that make them well-suited for clinical research roles. However, traditional hiring and interviewing practices create barriers. For example:
Interviewers may unintentionally disadvantage foreign medical graduates, even if they are highly skilled, by expecting them to conform to U.S.-centric expectations like self-promotion or specific interview formats that they may not be familiar with.
Rigid credential requirements may exclude candidates with great hands-on research experience, just because their career path was non-traditional.
UpTrials is addressing these barriers with our online platform tailored to clinical research hiring. UpTrials is leveraging AI to (i) expand the universe of candidates for hire, (ii) pre-screen candidates at scale, reducing inefficiency and bias, and (iii) match job seekers and jobs, helping employers hire candidates best suited for their roles and improving hiring odds for job seekers. UpTrials supports sites, CROs and sponsors, for internal hiring and/or site staff augmentation. UpTrials is also committed to ensuring that our candidate pool is diverse. By using AI algorithms and focusing on inclusive practices, UpTrials ensures that candidates from diverse and non-traditional backgrounds are not overlooked.
UpTrials works with clinical research sites, CROs and sponsors to:
Craft inclusive job descriptions that emphasize skills and potential over rigid qualifications.
Implement structured and culturally aware interview frameworks that enable fair evaluation of all candidates, regardless of background.
Source talent from underrepresented groups using targeted outreach, ensuring a broader and more diverse talent pool.
Addressing DEI in clinical research hiring is about more than fairness; it’s about improving trial quality and outcomes. A diverse workforce ensures a broader range of perspectives, fosters trust with underrepresented populations, and ultimately improves the ability to conduct trials that reflect the needs of all patients. With platforms like UpTrials, the industry is taking an important step toward closing both staffing and diversity gaps, creating a more equitable and effective future for clinical research.
A Call to Action
To address the staffing crisis and promote diversity in clinical research, sponsors and sites must adopt innovative, data-driven hiring strategies. By partnering with UpTrials, organizations can:
Reduce Time to Fill & Improve Operational Efficiency: UpTrials utilizes advanced algorithms and a nationwide network of pre-screened talent to quickly fill clinical research positions. This helps sites regain operational efficiency, meet trial timelines, and enhance results for both sponsors and patients.
Minimize Financial Losses from Staffing Delays: By reducing vacancies, UpTrials helps research employers stay on schedule, preventing costly delays that can derail timelines and diminish the financial value of clinical trials.
Enhance Workforce Diversity: Committed to building a more inclusive clinical research workforce, UpTrials actively sources talent from underrepresented groups and uses culturally aware interview practices. This approach not only addresses staffing shortages but also fosters trust between sites and diverse patient populations, enhancing trial inclusivity and equity in outcomes.
Addressing these challenges is about more than operational efficiency—it’s about ensuring equitable access to life-saving treatments and advancing public trust in clinical research. By embracing solutions like those offered by UpTrials, the industry can make meaningful progress in both staffing and diversity, ultimately improving outcomes for everyone involved.
Interested in learning more about using UpTrials? If you’re a site, CRO, or sponsor, email us at info@uptrials.com to learn how you can use UpTrials to hire. If you’re a clinical research job seeker, sign up today at app.uptrials.com.
Sources:
McDowell, A. (n.d.). What clinical trial statistics tell us about the state of research Today. Antidote. https://www.antidote.me/blog/what-clinical-trial-statistics-tell-us-about-the-state-of-research-today
Chatters, R., Dimairo, M., Cooper, C., Ditta, S., Woodward, J., Biggs, K., Ogunleye, D., Thistlethwaite, F., Yap, C., & Rothman, A. (2024, March 1). Exploring the barriers to, and importance of, participant diversity in early-phase clinical trials: An interview-based qualitative study of professionals and patient and public representatives. BMJ Open. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/3/e075547
Cramer, G. (2020, August 11). Representation in clinical trials: A review on reaching underrepresented populations in research. ACRP. https://acrpnet.org/2020/08/10/representation-in-clinical-trials-a-review-on-reaching-underrepresented-populations-in-research
Getz, K., Florez, M., Botto, E., Ribeiro, K., Goller, G., Robinson, L., & Abdullah, O. (2022, September). Global Investigative Site Personnel Diversity and its relationship with study participant diversity. Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9186277/
Sun, G., Dixon, D., Szczepanek, C., Petrylak, D., Sparks, D., Tangen, C., Lara, P., Thompson, I. & Blanke, C. (2023, June). Crisis of the Clinical Trials Staff Attrition After the COVID-19 Pandemic. JCO Oncology Practice. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.23.00152