Of the 46 possible respondents in the CTSA group, 37 (80.4%) 217 respondents in the NCURA group conducted surveys. Because individuals subscribed to any of the four listservs, we were unable to identify a denominator or response rate for the NCURA group. Table 2 shows the number (and percentage) of responses to survey questions addressed to all respondents (Part I) and those managed only by respondents from institutions with written guidelines on the disclosure of research and development (part II). Facilities and administrative costs (R-D) are the costs associated with the provision and maintenance of the infrastructure that supports the research enterprise (buildings and maintenance, support offices, etc.) and which cannot be easily identified by a particular project. The university requires that the corresponding research and development costs be included in all proposal budgets, unless the proponent expressly prohibits them and expects that research and development costs will be recovered as much as possible. The equipment is excluded from the total direct cost of determining the costs of research and development. While most respondents (80.7%, 205/254) agreed that a standard policy of cost-sharing of research and development would facilitate interdisciplinary cooperation, only 35.4% (90/254) said that their institutions followed such a policy. Of the 85 respondents whose institutions pursued a policy, most (66%, 77.6%) stated that the policy was to provide grants with several lead investigators or co-investigators in all departments or schools, and 68 (80.0%) Political satisfaction. Respondents from institutions with political languages were much more likely to support the idea that policies are useful than those who reported that their institutions had not adopted such a policy or were unsure of their existence (89% vs. 76%, P – 0.014). The authors did not find significant differences in satisfaction assessments based on the nature of the policy, whether determined by auditor use, space allocation or other considerations (P – 0.29).
The objective of this study was therefore to describe common coverage models of research and development costs for research in universities and university health centres (AHCs) and to measure user experience. We have described and categorized a number of different systems currently in use in the United States, as well as user perception and satisfaction, as well as user perception and satisfaction, as shown in our survey. Prior to conducting the survey, we expected the two survey groups CTSA and NCURA to respond differently to survey questions because of their different roles (senior investigators versus researchers) and the types of institutions they were working on (College, University or AHC). Overall, however, the reactions of the two groups were remarkably similar; most supported the idea of sharing research and development to enable interdisciplinary research, and most were satisfied with the policies. The 80% response rate of the CTSA group, composed of high-level researchers, shows a great interest in research faculties.