Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Patient Retention
Long-term Real-World Evidence (RWE) studies face significant challenges when it comes to patient retention, for several reasons:
[1] Time Commitment: Participants in RWE studies are often required to participate over extended periods, sometimes even years. This long-term commitment may lead to decreased interest and attrition over time, especially if the participants do not see immediate benefits from their participation.
[2] Life Changes: Given the long-term nature of RWE studies, life events such as changes in health status, relocation, changes in personal or financial circumstances, or simply a change in priorities can influence a participant’s ability or desire to continue in the study.
[3] Perceived Burden: Depending on the design of the study, the level of participant engagement required can vary widely. Some RWE studies may require frequent hospital visits, self-reporting of data, regular lab tests, or other potentially time-consuming activities. The perceived burden of these requirements can negatively impact retention.
[4] Lack of Engagement: If participants feel that they are just data points and do not feel personally engaged or valued, they may be more likely to drop out of the study. Personal engagement strategies, regular communication, and feedback are therefore crucial to keep participants motivated.
[5] Privacy and Data Security Concerns: In the era of digital health data, participants might worry about the potential misuse of their personal health information, which may lead to dropouts.
[6] Inadequate Understanding: If the participants do not fully understand the importance of their role, the relevance of the research, or the potential benefits to them or to society, they may be less likely to continue in the study. Education and clear communication are key to ensuring participants understand these aspects.
To address these challenges, researchers are increasingly looking to use technologies and strategies that can improve the participant experience and maintain engagement over time, such as remote monitoring technologies, digital health platforms, personalized engagement strategies, and clear, ongoing communication about the value and impact of the study.
Share this story...
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – ICH GCP (R3) – Real World Evidence Context
RWE 101 - ICH GCP (R3) - Real World Evidence Context Revision 2 of ICH GCP caused confusion to those of us who work with non-interventional studies. The glossary [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Non-Interventional Studies vs Market Health Research
RWE 101 - Non-Interventional Studies vs Market Health Research Key differences between a non-interventional study (NIS) and market health research include:1. Research Objective: NIS are conducted to examine real-world [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Audits vs Inspections
RWE 101 - Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 - Audits vs Inspections In the context of regulatory compliance for Real-World Evidence (RWE), both audits and inspections play crucial roles, [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – A Career of Many Pathways
RWE 101 - A Career of Many Pathways Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to the information on health care that is derived from analysis of real-world data (RWD). RWE [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Evolution of Regulatory Affairs
RWE 101 - Evolution of Regulatory Affairs Real-world evidence (RWE) and real-world data (RWD) are increasingly influencing regulatory affairs in the biopharmaceutical and healthcare industry. This change has been [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Project Managers
RWE 101 - Project Managers Real-World Evidence (RWE) observational studies and clinical trials are both key elements of medical research, but they involve very different methodologies, aims, and requirements. [...]