When patients find themselves interacting with information about their health and well-being, it is the responsibility of healthcare professionals to ensure that these interactions are as meaningful and productive as they can be. In this regard, the informed consent process is among the most important facets of clinical research currently undergoing a digital transformation, and pharmaceutical companies must continue to adopt eConsent across the board.
In an age where patients have more choice about treatment options (just think about how the treatment guidelines have evolved for multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis in the last 10 years for example,) and more clinical trials are being conducted by fewer investigators, there has been a constant upward pressure on competition for clinical trial patients, even as sponsors and third party recruitment companies becomes more innovative and proactive in their approaches to marketing their trials.
It’s clear that the clinical team for each study is tasked with creating and managing an individual study budget. The problem is one-off study purchases do not accrue the benefits of volume discounting. Of course, there are numerous and complicated financial arrangements sponsors make with service providers to create optimal rates for clinical trial support – but what about the simple construct of, “buy one shirt, get another for free?”
Facebook recently held a special, invite-only breakfast for drug marketers about recruitment for clinical trials, educating them on targeting consumers and announcing their latest initiative, “clinical trial strategy”.
Part 1 in this series of blogs on the role of referring physicians in clinical research chronicled the factors that have led to study sponsors’ lack of confidence in physician referrals as an effective patient recruitment strategy. In Part 2 of this series on Research Champions referring physicians spoke for themselves through primary research conducted by BBK Worldwide. Today, we look at best practices that lead to referring physician programs that generate compelling results.
Part 1 in this series of blogs on the role of referring physicians in clinical research chronicled the factors that have led to study sponsors’ lack of confidence in physician referrals as an effective patient recruitment strategy. This installment gives voice to the referring physicians themselves by sharing results of primary research conducted by BBK Worldwide.
Long ago, in a land far away, principal investigators were expected to “accrue study subjects” using their network of physician colleagues. Enrolling subjects from one’s patient panel was discouraged as therapeutic misconception might impugn study results. As a result, acceptable enrollment might run from 36 to 60 months or more.
Investigators would commonly send a “Dear Doctor” letter to others within their hospital or to their personal connections. Rarely did these letters produce effective results. Over time, referring physician programs altogether lost value and credibility due to a few commonly held beliefs:
At this stage in the evolution of mHealth, how do we make it easier for sites and patients to stay engaged with a clinical trial? In this interview, BBK Worldwide’s Erica Mercado provides her insights on mHealth user experience optimization, adaptive engagement strategies, and mHealth’s integrated future.
It’s that time of the year again – we are getting ready for DIA 2017 53rd Annual Meeting, which starts June 18th in Chicago. With over 7,000 life sciences professionals from across all disciplines expected to attend, we look forward to engaging in insightful and inspiring discussions with leading innovators from the healthcare and clinical research industries.
BBK Worldwide has coupled its reputation with the singular idea that placing patient and caregiver needs as the first priority for clinical research is a win-win for all involved. For more than twenty years, BBK has promoted the company tagline, “The Patients to Find the Cure.” Having moved our collected perspectives from the days where BBK was criticized for referring to “subjects” as “patients,” the current research environment reveres “patient centricity” as the industry mantra. So, what’s next? A new concern shrouds our efforts. The notion that technological solutions are at the root of patient-centric care, in fact, may defeat the very goal the industry wishes to accomplish.