Working with Recruitment Partners in Decentralized Trials

Expanding Reach Without Losing Visibility

Recruitment is often one of the biggest barriers to running human trials and, in decentralised studies, the challenge shifts. You’re no longer relying solely on sites to bring in participants. Instead, recruitment partners, digital campaigns, and third-party networks become central players.

This expanded reach is valuable, but it also comes with complexity. The more partners involved, the harder it is to ensure a smooth, cohesive experience for participants especially during the first steps of their study journey.

‍

What Recruitment Partners Can (and Can’t) Do

There’s a wide range of services offered under the banner of “recruitment support.” Some vendors run targeted ad campaigns and direct traffic to a screener. Others offer warm handoffs via phone or chat. Some handle pre-screening in full, and a few even provide partially pre-qualified participants to the study team.

It’s important to be clear on exactly what your recruitment partner is doing:

• Are they just generating traffic, or are they qualifying participants?

• Do they control the first point of contact?

• Will they pass data directly to your system, or send it manually?

• How will they handle participant queries, drop-outs, or unclear responses?

Knowing these boundaries early can prevent missteps later. A good partner is one that fits seamlessly into your workflow... not one that needs constant clarification.

‍

The Handoff is Where Most Problems Start

The biggest challenge in decentralised recruitment is the handoff. The moment when a participant moves from the recruitment environment into the study’s infrastructure.

Even small delays at this point can lead to drop-off. A participant who fills in a screener, gets a “thank you,” and hears nothing for 48 hours is far less likely to respond again. Momentum matters.

A strong handoff usually includes:

• A clear confirmation (“You’re eligible, next steps coming shortly”)

• An immediate action (like booking an appointment or reviewing the PIS)

• A consistent tone and visual environment, so the participant feels continuity

• A named contact or support channel, in case they have questions

Many studies lose participants not because of poor targeting, but because they leave them hanging at the crucial transition moment.

‍

Automating Without Losing the Human Element

Some of the handoff can and should be automated. For example, once a participant passes a screener, they could:

• Be sent directly to a booking link for a study nurse

• Receive an email confirming their eligibility and explaining next steps

• Get immediate access to a participant dashboard or secure portal

But automation isn’t about removing people from the process. It’s about preserving momentum until a human can step in with the right support. Participants should feel that the process is responsive and smooth, not cold or robotic.

‍

Tracking What Actually Matters

Once recruitment is live, focus shouldn’t be just on total enrolments. There’s value in watching what happens in between:

• How many people complete the screener but never book?

• What’s the average time between referral and first contact?

• How often do participants drop out after being deemed eligible?

• Are there delays caused by manual steps, like data being emailed to the site?

These metrics often reveal where bottlenecks lie, and where study teams can intervene to reduce friction. Sometimes the fix is small, like adjusting the confirmation message or adding a reminder. Sometimes it means rebuilding a part of the funnel.

Either way, recruitment in decentralised studies needs to be treated as a workflow, not a one-off task.

‍

Choosing the Right Partner

Finally, not all recruitment companies are equal, and not all are equally suited to decentralised models. Experience matters, but so does alignment.

Things to look for:

• Have they worked on trials like yours - with similar demographics, tech requirements, or timelines?

• Can they integrate with your study tools, or will they need constant manual workarounds?

• Do they provide transparency on performance, or only final numbers?

A good recruitment partner becomes part of your team. A poor one just sends leads and waits for results.

The best partnerships happen when both sides treat participants not as numbers to move through a pipeline, but as people making a decision to take part in research. That shared mindset (more than any metric) is what makes decentralised recruitment work.