Feature|Articles|September 22, 2026

Is Decentralization Actually Reducing Site Burden, or Just Moving It?

Decentralized trial models have demonstrated real gains in enrollment performance and patient access, but operational switching costs, fragmented technology stacks, and unresolved gaps in the patient-site relationship raise a question the industry has been slow to confront directly.

Decentralization has reshaped the conversation around clinical trial access and efficiency, but the question of what it actually does to site burden has received far less scrutiny than what it does for patients. Three distinct voices, arriving at the same unresolved question across the course of a year, suggest the industry may be optimizing for the wrong metric.

Related to this article

© photon_photo - © photon_photo - stock.adobe.com
Standardized measurement across five oncology centers found that clinical research coordinators rated eSource-enabled workflows positively (Overall Mean Satisfaction 5.79 of 7), with reduced manual entry and electronic data transfer earning strong marks, while perceived reduction in sponsor and monitor queries lagged as the one domain below threshold.
Building AI Assistants Clinical Trial Teams Can Trust: Q&A with E.K. Koh, Suvoda
In this Q&A, E.K. Koh, chief product officer at Suvoda, discusses what separates a trustworthy AI assistant from one that adds risk, why curated clinical knowledge matters more than general-purpose flexibility, and what safeguards must be in place when assistants move from answering questions to taking actions in clinical trial systems.