For many life sciences companies, clinical trial recruitment feels like a perpetual uphill battle. Despite pouring resources into outreach campaigns and partnering with top research institutions, the patient pipeline often runs dry. Recruitment targets go unmet, timelines stretch, and frustration mounts. But why is it so hard to find participants for trials that could change or save lives?
The answer isn’t just about logistics. it’s about connecting with the right people and telling a story that resonates. The systems in place must not only support the recruitment process but also foster trust and engagement with potential participants.
By focusing on clear communication, addressing patient concerns, and building relationships with diverse communities, life sciences companies can begin to bridge the gap and meet their recruitment goals. Trials that have the potential to transform lives deserve the chance to reach those who need them most. It's time to rethink how we approach recruitment, not just as a task, but as an opportunity to create meaningful connections that drive real change.
The tangled roots of the recruitment crisis
A study published in Nature Reviews Urology highlighted a sobering reality: nearly 80% of clinical trials fail to meet recruitment goals, and 19% are terminated outright because they can’t enroll enough participants.1 This isn’t just a logistical problem, it’s a fundamental breakdown in how trials connect with the communities they aim to serve.
Consider Maria, a 57-year-old mother of two living with Type 2 diabetes in a mid-sized city. She sees ads for clinical trials on Facebook but hesitates to click. The language is dense, the process feels intimidating, and she’s not sure if she’ll be a good fit. When she brings it up at her next doctor’s appointment, her physician shrugs as he’s never heard of the study. Maria wonders if the trial is legitimate, whether it's truly designed for people like her, and if participating will actually make a difference in her health.
Maria’s story isn’t unique. Recruitment efforts often fail because they don’t address three key barriers: trust, accessibility, and relevance.
Trust is eroded when patients feel that the trial lacks transparency or is not backed by their healthcare providers.
Accessibility becomes a barrier when potential participants, like Maria, don’t know where to find relevant studies or feel that the process is too complicated.
Relevance is an issue when the trial doesn’t seem tailored to their specific condition, age, or circumstances, leaving them to wonder if it’s truly meant for them.
Clinical trials can become more than just an option by simplifying the information, ensuring trusted healthcare professionals are involved, and showing that the trials truly align with the patient’s needs. Therefore, they can become an opportunity that patients, like Maria, are eager to pursue instead of being questioned.
The trust deficit
If your recruitment strategy doesn’t actively build trust by engaging community leaders, emphasizing transparency, and addressing past harms, you’re unlikely to win over hesitant participants.
A 2025 survey by the Journal of Clinical Medicine found that over 40% of patients mistrust clinical research, citing fears of exploitation and concerns about safety.2 For communities of color, these fears are amplified by historical injustices, like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.
To address the trust deficit, life sciences companies must take proactive steps to rebuild confidence in clinical trials.
One effective approach is partnering with community leaders who can act as trusted ambassadors, helping to bridge the gap between researchers and potential participants. By involving local influencers, healthcare providers, and advocacy groups, especially in historically underserved communities, you create a more relatable and trusted network of voices.
The accessibility problem
Even when patients are willing to participate, practical barriers often stand in the way. A report from the Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP) revealed that nearly 50% of patients would join a trial if transportation, childcare, or financial compensation were offered.3 Yet many trials fail to account for these needs.
Imagine asking Maria to drive three hours to a trial site twice a month while juggling work and family responsibilities. Without support, participation becomes an impossible ask.
To overcome the accessibility problem, clinical trial organizers must address the logistical challenges that prevent patients from participating. Offering support such as transportation reimbursement or providing mobile trial sites can help remove the burden of travel. For patients like Maria, ensuring that trial sites are more geographically accessible or implementing telemedicine visits for follow-up appointments can make a significant difference in participation rates.
Beyond these direct supports, simplifying the trial process itself is essential. This could include offering flexible scheduling for visits or streamlining the paperwork and consent processes, which often serve as additional deterrents. By addressing these practical needs and providing a comprehensive support system, trials can make participation much more feasible for a wider range of patients, ensuring that those who are willing to participate are not held back by preventable barriers.
The relevance gap
Another challenge is relevance, or the lack thereof. Recruitment materials often speak in jargon-heavy, one-size-fits-all language that fails to resonate with patients. A study in Patient Experience Journal found that personalized, culturally sensitive messaging significantly improves recruitment rates.4
To bridge the relevance gap, it’s important to tailor recruitment efforts to the unique needs and experiences of different patient populations. This means using language that aligns with the patient’s health literacy level and cultural context, as well as addressing concerns that are specific to their conditions or communities.
For example, Maria may feel more engaged with materials that reflect her experiences as a mother living with Type 2 diabetes, rather than a generic message that doesn’t address her specific health concerns or lifestyle.
Additionally, incorporating patient testimonials or stories from others who share similar backgrounds can increase relatability and help patients see themselves as part of the trial.
When patients feel that a clinical trial is truly relevant to them, both in terms of their health and their life circumstances, they are far more likely to engage and participate. This approach builds a deeper connection and shows that the trial organizers understand the individual needs of potential participants.
A better way forward
Fixing recruitment isn’t about working harder, it’s about working smarter. Successful trials rethink how they engage with patients at every step. Three ways to do this are as follows:
- Start local: Partner with community organizations, clinics, and advocacy groups to build trust where it matters most.
- Invest in accessibility: Offer stipends, flexible scheduling, and virtual options to eliminate barriers to entry.
- Speak human: Replace medical jargon with patient-first language that connects emotionally and practically.
When trials meet patients where they are, such as in their neighborhoods, in their languages, and on their terms, the results can be transformative.
A turning point for clinical trials
Clinical trials are the backbone of innovation in life sciences, yet their success hinges on the very human process of recruitment. By shifting the focus from patients as data points to patients as partners, the industry can finally address its recruitment crisis and deliver on its promise of better health for all.
A more personalized, transparent, and accessible approach not only attracts more participants but also creates a richer, more diverse data set, driving more meaningful breakthroughs.
People like Maria might not click on that Facebook ad today, but with the right outreach, they could become the lifeline for tomorrow’s breakthrough.
Sources:
- Lang P, Vassar M. Addressing diversity barriers in prostate cancer clinical trials for equitable healthcare outcomes. Nat Rev Urol. Published online February 18, 2025. doi:10.1038/s41585-025-01008-8
- Barsha RAA, Assari S, Byiringiro S, et al. Motivation to Clinical Trial Participation: Health Information Distrust and Healthcare Access as Explanatory Variables and Gender as Moderator. JCM. 2025;14(2):485. doi:10.3390/jcm14020485
- Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP). 2023 Perceptions & Insights Study. Published 2023.
- Wasim A, Sajan M, Majid U. Patient-centered care frameworks, models and approaches: An environmental scan. Patient Experience Journal. 2023;10(2):14-22. doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1806
- Briel M, Elger BS, McLennan S, Schandelmaier S, Von Elm E, Satalkar P. Exploring reasons for recruitment failure in clinical trials: a qualitative study with clinical trial stakeholders in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. Trials. 2021;22(1):844. doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05818-0