Clinical trials continue to face significant challenges in participant recruitment and retention. The Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC), part of the Trial Innovation Network (TIN), has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health to develop innovative strategies and technologies to enhance participant engagement in all stages of multicenter clinical trials. In collaboration with investigator teams and liaisons at Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions, the RIC is charged with the mission to design, field-test, and refine novel resources in the context of individual clinical trials. These innovations are disseminated via newsletters, publications, a virtual toolbox on the TIN website, and RIC-hosted collaboration webinars. The RIC has designed, implemented, and promised customized recruitment support for 173 studies across many diverse disease areas. This support has incorporated site feasibility assessments, community input sessions, recruitment materials recommendations, social media campaigns, and an array of study-specific suggestions. The RIC’s goal is to evaluate the efficacy of these resources and provide access to all investigating teams, so that more trials can be completed on time, within budget, with diverse participation, and with enough accrual to power statistical analyses and make substantive contributions to the advancement of healthcare.

Objectives: Assessments of health technologies increasingly include economic evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials. One particular concern with economic evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials is the generalizability of results from one setting to another. Much of the focus relating to this topic has been on the generalizability of results between countries. However, the characteristics of clinical trial design require further consideration of the generalizability of cost data between centers within a single country, which could be important in decisions about adoption of the new technology.

Methods: We used data from a multicenter clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom to assess the degree of variation in costs between patients and between treatment centers and the determinants of the degree of such variation.

Results: The variation between patients was statistically significant for both the experimental and conventional treatments. However, the degree of variation between centers was only statistically significant for the experimental treatment. Such variation appeared to be a result of hospital practice, such as payment mechanisms for staff and provision of hostel accommodation, rather than variations in physical resource use or substantive differences in cost structure.

Conclusions: Multicenter economic evaluations are necessary for determining the variations in hospital practice and characteristics that can in turn determine the generalizability of study results to other settings. Such analyses can identify issues that may be important in adopting a new health technology. Analysis is required of similar large multicenter trials to confirm these conclusions.