MENU
As we begin to think about putting the pandemic in our rearview mirror, questions remain: Of all the changes made in the research industry since the beginning of the pandemic, wha stays? What goes? What does the research landscape look like in a post-COVID world?
In this whitepaper, we explore the impact of COVID on research, diving into new and emerging trends, and folding in interviews with four researchers working at the site level. These researchers discuss their challenges and successes during the pandemic, weigh in on what changes may be here to stay, and share their perspectives on two major trends the pandemic brought to light: virtual trials and the need for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in research.
In the past year, we’ve all been witness to an extraordinary amount of loss. As the pandemic continues, there’s one question that continues to rise to the surface: how has this extended period of stress and loss impacted our mental health? Are we okay, and will we be in the future?
In this whitepaper, we take a look at the broad impact of COVID-19 on mental health. We focus first on the general public, then narrow in on people who tested positive, those with pre-existing mental health disorders, and healthcare workers. We explore mental health treatment during the pandemic, and dive into the implications for clinical trial participants as well.
A guiding principle of ethical medical research today is justice: the fair distribution of costs and benefits to potential research participants.
But as we examine the current lack of diversity in clinical trials, we have to ask: are research opportunities being distributed fairly? And can alternative clinical trials models, such as decentralized trials, help tip the scales towards attaining distributive justice?
This whitepaper provides a snapshot of the current state of diversity in clinical trials, then explores whether the alternative clinical trial approaches necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic might ensure that more potential research participants have fair access to clinical trials.
While the world is focused on the promise of clinical trials to find treatments and vaccines for COVID-19, more than 1,000 clinical trials for other conditions have delayed their start or been paused. In the midst of a global pandemic, how do we move research forward, both for COVID-19 and for other conditions?
We explore this question from patient and site perspectives, then dive into the pandemic’s impact on data, operations, and recruitment. In examining the effects of COVID-19 on medical research at large, we also take a close look at considerations for restarting clinical research in conditions beyond COVID.
Our survey of 4,000 patients included 10% people living with melanoma and their caregivers. In this whitepaper, we take a close look at data from this patient population. We dive into reasons that melanoma patients do or do not take part in clinical trials and examine what researchers can do to make the melanoma community feel like partners in research.
In this whitepaper, we examine COVID-19’s impact to-date on consumer behavior and digital marketing across various industries. We take a close look at digital engagement in the healthcare industry, particularly in regards to digital advertising for clinical trial patient recruitment.
Can we apply customer service models to healthcare? And what would that mean for clinical trial patient recruitment? In this whitepaper, we compare digital and human customer engagement, taking a close look at the impact both can have on patients looking for clinical trials. We explore how mapping the buyer’s journey to the patient journey can shed light on the right strategies for clinical trial patient recruitment.
When we understand why patients take part in research, we can make clinical trial recruitment – and every clinical research step – more effective and engaging. We partnered with Scorr Marketing to survey nearly 4,000 patients about their attitudes towards clinical trials and what motivates them to take part. We shared highlights from our findings in this executive summary.
Patients are interested in research participation: they just need to be approached in the right way. This whitepaper, the first in a series, digs into the results of our survey of ~4,000 patients and parses out how both condition area and race affect both patient willingness to take part and the types of trials patients would consider. These findings offer insights into selecting the right recruitment strategy.
Clinical trial recruitment is notoriously difficult. Even trials that meet their targets may not enroll a diverse group that reflects real-world patient populations. So how can we better engage patients from all walks of life in research? Our whitepaper explores how patients choose to participate – or not participate – in a clinical trial.
Structural barriers, challenging protocol, lack of awareness – we’re learning more and more about the reasons patients don’t participate in research. But what motivates the select few that do take part? As part of our larger survey, we asked more than 1,000 clinical trial participants about their decision to join a research study. We share those findings in this whitepaper
With increasingly complex clinical trial protocols, filling trial quotas today is more challenging than ever before, and this means that traditional methods of recruitment are becoming ineffective.
In this context, this white paper explores precision recruitment against traditional recruitment methods and demonstrates the need for this unique and tailored blend of expert digital engagement strategies, patient-specific data, and partnerships with patient communities.
In order to bring treatments that work for everyone to pharmacy shelves, clinical trials must reflect real-world populations. But unfortunately, participation rates for patients from minority groups have historically been lower than for white patients.
Nonprofits, patient advocates, and government agencies have all gotten involved in improving these statistics. But have their efforts worked?
In our report, we outline the latest progress toward true diversity in research, and what we can do next.
