Comparisons

Should a research site market to physicians or directly to patients?

By TrialNotice · Updated
Overhead view of a desk with a stack of navy envelopes on one side and yellow flyers on the other, a hand holding a pen between them
Short answerMost sites need both, but the protocol decides the balance. Lean on physicians when eligibility depends on a confirmed diagnosis, specialist testing, or treatment history patients cannot judge themselves. Lean on direct to patient marketing when the condition is common, patients know they have it, and the criteria are simple.

What does each route do best?

Patients prefer to hear about trials from their doctor: 58% said they would begin a trial search by asking their doctor (CISCRP). But physicians refer less than 0.2% of their patients into trials (Getz). Direct marketing reaches patients who are already looking; physician outreach reaches the larger group whose doctor has never mentioned a study.

How does the protocol decide?

Protocol featureLeans toward
Requires a confirmed or specialist diagnosisPhysicians
Depends on labs, imaging, or treatment historyPhysicians
Condition is often undiagnosed or unrecognized by patientsPhysicians
Common, self identified condition with simple criteriaPatients
Healthy volunteers or broad populationsPatients

What do real conditions look like?

  • MASH: screen failure runs 70 to 80%, mostly at biopsy (JHEP Reports). Physicians who hold fibrosis test results are the better source.
  • COPD: only 32.7% of at risk primary care patients with COPD knew their diagnosis in one study (CMAJ). Patients who do not know they qualify will not answer an ad.
  • Common conditions with simple criteria: direct marketing can fill volume quickly.

Do approvals differ?

Yes. FDA guidance treats ads and flyers for prospective subjects as direct advertising the IRB reviews, while doctor to doctor letters fall outside that category (FDA). Physician outreach can often launch faster, though your IRB may set its own rules.

How should you split the budget?

Start where the protocol points, then measure. Online recruitment cost less per enrollee in a meta analysis, while offline methods converted better in most comparisons (JMIR). Compare channels on cost per randomized patient and move budget monthly. See physician referrals vs Facebook ads.

Get your study in front of the right local physicians

TrialNotice builds a physician referral pipeline around one active study. We identify relevant local physicians within driving distance of your site, send study aligned direct mail, follow up by email and LinkedIn, track engagement with recipient level QR codes, and route warm responses into your site team's workflow.

Talk to TrialNotice

Sources

  1. CISCRP, 2017 Perceptions and Insights Study: Decision Making Process
  2. Ken Getz, Applied Clinical Trials, "Rebooting the Statistic That 5% of Eligible Patients Participate in Clinical Trials"
  3. "Prevalence and underdiagnosis of COPD among patients at risk in primary care," CMAJ, via Global Family Doctor
  4. "Non invasive tests for fibrotic MASH for reducing screen failure in therapeutic trials," JHEP Reports, PubMed
  5. FDA, "Recruiting Study Subjects" guidance for IRBs and clinical investigators
  6. Brøgger Mikkelsen M. et al., "Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis," Journal of Medical Internet Research

Keep reading

Clinical research coordinator comparing a social media feed on her phone with a printed physician referral letter
Comparisons

Physician referrals vs Facebook ads for clinical trial recruitment

Online ads tend to be cheaper per enrollee and faster, while offline channels convert better. Here is what the research says about ads versus referrals, and how sites use both.

 Research site director comparing three brochures at a bright cafe table in a modern office
Comparisons

Alternatives to patient recruitment vendors for small research sites

Full service recruitment vendors are not the only option. Here are five alternatives small research sites use, what each costs in time and money, and where each one works best.

 Two clinical research site staff members taking notes during a video call with a vendor
Comparisons

How to choose a patient recruitment company for your research site

Recruitment companies differ in how they find patients, how they charge, and what they report. Here are the types, the pricing models, the questions to ask, and the red flags.