Research Shows Significant Link Between Patient Recruitment Methods and Subject Retention in Clinical Trials

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa., May 7, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- A new white paper from MediciGlobal, "Clinical Retention Meta-Analysis" shows that patients who actively sought clinical trial involvement through MediciGlobal's online recruitment model had a 38% lower relative risk of drop out across four studies compared to those who were recruited by sites, with divergence across visits.  An excerpted edition of the white paper will be published in the June, 2015 issue of DIA Forum.

The primary outcome for the meta-analysis measure was retention rates of subjects recruited comparing the two methods of engagement, online versus site databases.  A secondary outcome was retention rates across all study visits to determine divergence patterns between the two groups.

Using PRISMA guidelines, systematic searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and the Educational Resources information center were performed and analyzed to validate MediciGlobal's findings.

"Efficient patient recruitment and effective patient retention in clinical trials is critical to clinical trial success. MediciGlobal prides itself on active and extensive patient engagement – it's gratifying to see that translate into quality patient referrals and subsequently higher retention rates," said Liz Moench, President and CEO of MediciGlobal. 

MediciGlobal uses a detailed online pre-screening method to match patients to study inclusion/exclusion criteria, coupled with additional contact by a nurse for second level pre-screening prior to being referred to a study site.

Katrina Morgan, Clinical Research Coordinator for Dr. Lazlo Mate, Neurologist in West Palm Beach, Florida commented that "Medici's pre-screening is thorough and helpful to our site in finding potential subjects that meet criteria protocol. The depth of patient engagement has had a positive impact on retention."

Higher retention levels of subjects actively engaged in seeking out a clinical trial compared to those who were passively engaged via the physician or study staff may be related to different motivations between the groups of patients, especially since patients that seek out the study online must also undergo an additional step in MediciGlobal's comprehensive vetting procedure used on the active group.  Additional research is necessary to further understand the drivers of these differences.