Your People Archives - L&E Research

Beyond the Pattern: Insights Only Real People Can Reveal

Chris on December 8, 2025

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the insights industry at an extraordinary pace. AI qualitative research has introduced new tools, new models, and new workflows that continue to push the boundaries of what is possible, tempting researchers with faster timelines and cleaner datasets. Yet beneath that excitement sits an important question: where does synthetic data strengthen the work, and where does it still fall short?

To explore that question, L&E Research conducted two complementary studies. The first took place in the spring and centered on bathroom habits, an intentionally human, messy topic that revealed notable gaps in how synthetic respondents interpret personal behaviors and contextual cues. The second study, completed this fall, examined breakfast habits using a more advanced methodology built inside CondUX. This allowed us to test how synthetic respondents handled logic-heavy branching, object detection, and emotionally driven open-ended tasks, all in parallel with a panel of sixty real people.

Together, these studies gave us a grounded, evidence-based view of what synthetic data can do well and where human insight still matters. The findings are neither alarmist nor celebratory. They are practical and measured, shaped by what happened when we put two respondent types through the same workflows. The results offer a clear direction for researchers who want to use synthetic respondents responsibly and effectively.

What Synthetic Data Did Well

Across both studies, synthetic respondents performed strongly when the task relied on structure, logic, and clear informational cues. They handled formatted questions accurately. They moved through complex branching without friction. They delivered consistent reasoning, tidy patterns, and clean distributions. For general trends or macro-level norms, synthetic outputs often aligned with the human panel. For example, all groups recognized comfort and scent as primary drivers of bathroom product choices, and nearly all showed similar attitudes toward basic hygiene habits and price sensitivity.

In the breakfast study, synthetics performed equally well when the question centered on observable behavior. When asked to estimate the percentage of people who skip breakfast, they offered clean, narrow ranges grounded in public data. When asked about the types of foods people tend to eat in the morning, their answers mirrored common consumer patterns. In these cases, the synthetic panel provided quick, directional insights that were easy to analyze.

The engineering work invested in building L&E’s synthetic panel also made a meaningful difference. The persona engine introduced individuality and response variability. The use of model combinations created a balance between speed and quality. Deterministic logic ensured that the branching path followed expected rules. These choices produced synthetic respondents that were more mature, more consistent, and more capable than in our earlier testing. They were still pattern-driven, but they were better at producing human-like variation within those boundaries.

All of this reinforces that synthetic respondents are valuable for certain uses. They can support early exploration, provide fast pulses before engaging real participants, and act as an efficient test bed for survey logic. They can also reveal formatting issues, help identify biases in question structure, and produce clean bulk data when speed is the highest priority. In these areas, the strengths of synthetic panels can save time, reduce cost, and support stronger research design.

Where Synthetic Data Fell Short

Although the synthetic panel handled structure well, it struggled consistently with emotion, contradiction, and personal context. When asked to share memories or describe feelings, synthetics provided warm vocabulary without lived grounding. Their emotional tone had polish, but not depth. In the smell memory task, synthetics created vivid scenes instead of authentic recollections. They described cinnamon and orange peels simmering on a stove, but never linked those images to real people, experiences, or moments.

This pattern repeated across open-ended responses. Humans spoke about parents, childhood routines, comfort, stress, and identity. They recalled mornings that had gone wrong, the rituals that held meaning, and the ways breakfast shaped their day. Synthetic respondents spoke in structured generalities. They offered interpretations that were plausible, but not personal. They followed linear reasoning, rarely contradicted themselves, and rarely displayed the spontaneity or unpredictability that characterizes real human behavior.

Visual outputs revealed similar limitations. In the bathroom study, synthetic images looked pristine and over-engineered, with little sense of real-world imperfection. In the breakfast study, freezer images generated by synthetics fell apart even as more effort was applied to improve variability. Increased engineering did not consistently yield more realistic results. In fact, the harder the system was pushed to create natural randomness, the more artificial the images became.

The most striking limitation surfaced when the AI was asked to classify the two datasets. It reviewed the human panel and synthetic panel and confidently asserted that panel A was human and panel B was synthetic. It was wrong. When asked why it misinterpreted the data, the model explained that it made its determination based on pattern recognition. It acknowledged that one dataset looked more structured and normalized, so it assumed that one was synthetic. The realization was important. Confidence did not mean accuracy, and pattern-driven thinking did not equate to human understanding.

This moment made something clear. Even when synthetic respondents look convincingly human, especially at first pass, the source of their output is fundamentally different. They respond to patterns. They do not respond to experience. Synthetic data is a powerful tool, but it does not replace the grounding that comes from real human insight.

Why Methodology Matters in AI Qualitative Research

The design decisions in the breakfast study highlighted the importance of building research that is intuitive for people. By leaning into image uploads, video responses, and object detection, the study created moments that felt natural and familiar. Participants engaged with the questions the way they would engage in everyday routines. This allowed us to observe how synthetics navigated the same experiences.

Regions of difference appeared clearly. Humans offered wide ranges of interpretation because lived experience varies. Synthetic respondents stayed within narrow, predictable bands. When object detection revealed inconsistent behavior, humans explained it through life context. Synthetics explained it through clean logic. When mornings went wrong, humans shared stress, panic, humor, and self-reflection. Synthetics shared sequences. The structure of the study amplified the contrast between the two respondent groups, and it made the findings easier to interpret.

The quality of the methodology also demonstrated how a platform like CondUX can elevate insight. Designed for people first, the study flow became smoother and more intuitive. The same design principles can improve synthetic processing by clarifying intent and reducing ambiguity. This dual benefit creates an environment where human-centered design, strong logic, and modern tools support both types of respondents.

A Practical Future for Synthetic Data

The future of synthetic data in AI qualitative research is not a matter of replacement. It is a matter of fit. There are places where synthetic can strengthen the work and places where it cannot. The responsible path is to use it with intention, knowing when it provides value and when it introduces risk.

Synthetic data is useful for the early stages of research. It can help test surveys, explore broad ideas, compare multiple concepts, and simulate missing segments. It is efficient for bulk analysis and can generate large sets of open-ended comments when the goal is volume rather than nuance. It is a valuable tool for reducing cost and saving time, particularly in early exploration or when the task does not rely on emotional depth.

Human participants remain essential for the parts of research that require meaning. Emotion, trust, comfort, cultural context, loyalty, fear, hesitation, and memory are not yet areas synthetic panels can replicate. Humans tell stories. They contradict themselves. They surprise us. They make decisions that do not always follow logic. All of this matters when the goal is to understand why people behave the way they do.

The findings from these two studies reinforce a simple conclusion. The future of insights is hybrid. Synthetic provides speed and structure. Humans provide depth and truth. Together, they can help researchers balance quality with efficiency.

The Takeaway for AI Qualitative Research

Synthetic respondents have come a long way in a short time. They offer significant advantages in speed and consistency, and they can support researchers in promising ways. At the same time, they cannot yet replicate the complexity, unpredictability, or emotional richness of human behavior. When the study is simple, those gaps are visible. When the study becomes complex, they grow.

What our research showed is not a verdict about technology. It is a reminder that tools and people serve different roles. Synthetic is a supportive partner, not a substitute. Used wisely, it can strengthen the research process. But the heart of qualitative work still comes from people. Their contradictions, context, and lived experiences shape insight in ways no model can fully imitate.

If synthetic struggles with simple tasks, it will not be ready for the complex ones. That is not a criticism: it is a direction for where we go next. The work ahead will continue to blend strong methodology, thoughtful design, and human understanding with the power of modern AI. That is how we will keep learning, keep evaluating, and keep improving the tools that will shape the next era of insights.

The Proxy: The Magic Bullet of Healthcare Market Research

Chris on November 17, 2025

Healthcare innovation continues to advance beyond common conditions. The focus now includes developing new treatment options and improving quality of life for individuals diagnosed with rare diseases.

This shift highlights the importance of accessing insights from these unique populations, their caregivers, and healthcare providers. One of the most challenging aspects of market research in the healthcare sector is recruiting participants from the rare disease cohort. To meet required quotas, researchers often need to introduce flexibility within audience requirements, leading to the inclusion of proxy participants.

When carefully selected and well-defined, proxy participants can contribute to the success of a study. However, poorly chosen or inadequately defined surrogate participants can undermine the legitimacy of the insights and compromise the integrity of the data. To navigate these challenges successfully, it’s essential to understand how rare diseases impact the research process.

Rare Disease Impact on Research

While rare conditions pave the way for medical advancements through research, the more niche a condition, the less accessible those diagnosed become for participation in market research, particularly for studies requiring in-person involvement.

A rare condition is defined as one that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States and fewer than 1 in 2,000 people worldwide. Although each condition is uncommon on its own, more than 7,000 rare diseases collectively affect over 30 million people across the U.S. This limited patient recruitment pool makes traditional recruitment strategies impractical for rare disease studies.

For in-person qualitative research, incorporate proxy patients into the recruitment approach from the outset, provided the research is not a clinical trial and does not involve treatments or medication administration.

By pre-defining acceptable surrogate patients as a flexible component of the recruitment strategy, researchers can ensure a predictable pace, schedule, and budget. This minimizes the need for additional approvals and unexpected accommodations during the research process.

The Power of the Proxy

When evaluating the impact of including representative patients in a rare condition study, there are four key elements to consider:

Prevalence

Pre-identifying and approving surrogate populations to represent rare cohorts can elevate a project’s incidence rate (IR). It increases the likelihood that the project will meet its defined quota(s) within the specified timeframe and budget.

Accessibility

Reasonably budgeted in-person research requires clusters of patients in defined central locations. For rare conditions, clustering is challenging, if not impossible, without requiring patient travel.

Due to the underlying diagnosis qualifying them for the research, patient travel is often unrealistic.

Budget

Rare condition in-person research is costly. Without the inclusion of surrogate patients, researchers face two options: research team travel or patient travel.

Funding for rare disease research is often limited due to the perceived low return on investment for therapies prescribed to a small patient population, coupled with the high cost of drug development.

Stamina

The most researched rare conditions are often in the specialties of oncology, neurology, and pulmonology.

These diagnoses are frequently accompanied by decreased stamina due to disruptions in energy production, muscle function, and nerve transmission. Patients may decline market research study opportunities, especially those that are longer or multi-step, to preserve and protect their energy and health.

Defining Your Proxy

These four elements establish why proxy participants matter. The next step is defining who qualifies as an acceptable proxy for your specific study.

Evaluate and prioritize the negotiable versus non-negotiable qualifiers related to your study participants. Whether focusing on patient journey, preference research, or device/software usability, consider what can be replicated by a population with higher prevalence but similar pathways in terms of symptomatology, provider pool, and treatment experience. Strategic patient recruitment planning at this stage prevents delays and budget overruns later.

From there, acceptable surrogate patients can be defined.

Examples of successful patient proxies in qualitative market research:

Supplementing Tardive Dyskinesia patients with those diagnosed with Essential Tremor.
Recruiting stroke-induced aphasia patients to meet quotas for Landau-Kleffner Syndrome.
Utilizing cirrhosis patients with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) to recruit for Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency studies.

Patient Recruitment Considerations & Recommendations

Once proxy participants are defined, execution becomes critical. The following recommendations help ensure successful rare disease patient recruitment:

Proof of Diagnosis: When recruiting rare and representative patients, require participants to provide proof of diagnosis, typically in the form of an EMR sent via secure transfer to the recruitment partner.
Decentralize: Whenever possible, conduct the research remotely. This approach increases the pool of rare patient participants available while keeping costs low.

For small device testing, consider shipping the prototype to the patient with prepaid return arrangements.

Simplify: Availability and stamina are prevalent concerns.

Keep the research simple by eliminating long engagements, multi-step, or multi-day study methodologies.

Transportation: Make transportation easy. Depending on the required diagnoses and/or the age of the participants, consider arranging transportation or providing an extra incentive for a family member or friend to assist with transportation.
Over-Recruit: The recommended over-recruitment rate for remote rare patient research is 20 percent, increasing to 25 percent for in-person research. Cancellation rates are higher among the chronically ill due to the unpredictability of their health on the study date and limited scheduling options.

To ensure quotas are met within the designated timeline, a 25 percent over-recruitment is recommended.

Your Recruitment Partner

The right partner makes these best practices work.

A successful rare patient recruitment effort depends on the quality of your recruiting partner. Look for vendors with clinical expertise who can help design a workable recruitment strategy.

Partners with an established presence in the industry, affiliations with rare patient groups, and a proven track record in rare patient research deliver the best outcomes.

Proxy participants in rare disease market research offer a powerful strategy for overcoming the inherent challenges of recruiting these unique populations. Careful selection of surrogate patients, decentralized research efforts, and simplified study designs enable researchers to gather meaningful insights that drive healthcare innovation.

Quality and reliability of data improve with these practices, supporting effective treatments and improved quality of life for individuals affected by rare diseases. As medical research continues to push boundaries, thoughtful and strategic recruitment approaches remain essential in advancing our understanding and addressing the needs of these special populations.

Ready to Get Started?

If you’re planning a rare disease study, our healthcare research team can help you recruit the right participants efficiently and reliably.

With extensive experience in rare disease and specialty populations, we design studies that meet quotas, stay on schedule, and produce high-quality, actionable insights.

Qual vs. Bot: A Study So Real, It’s Artificial

DWG Admin on October 23, 2025

The research world is buzzing about synthetic respondents, but the question remains: can AI-driven panels deliver the same nuance, insight, and emotional depth as real people? As synthetic panel technology matures, researchers are grappling with when – and if – it makes sense to replace human participation with machine-generated responses.

Join L&E Research as we unveil the results of a brand-new case study designed to put synthetic respondents to the test. In this session, we’ll compare real and AI-generated participants across several research tasks, revealing surprising insights about where synthetic data delivers, where it doesn’t, and what that means for the future of research. Along the way, we’ll highlight a few innovative platform features that made this experiment possible.

This isn’t just a theoretical discussion. We’ve built synthetic panels using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) models and compared them to real participants recruited via Condux’s self-serve capabilities. The result? A compelling, unbiased look at when synthetic works, when it fails, and how researchers can smartly deploy it.

Whether you’re skeptical, curious, or already testing AI in your research stack, this session will help you understand what’s hype – and what’s real.

During this webinar, we’ll explore:

What we tested: An overview of the research design, including how we structured parallel studies with synthetic and real respondents.
How responses differed: Key findings on where synthetic participants aligned with, or diverged from, human data.
Methodological implications: What our results suggest about the strengths and limitations of using AI-generated respondents in various research scenarios.
Workflow considerations: A look at how survey logic, branching, and object detection influenced participant experience and outcomes.
Practical takeaways: Where synthetic inputs can realistically support qualitative and quantitative goals, and where caution is still warranted.

4 Participant Boosters: A Guide to Better Research Outcomes

DWG Admin on July 23, 2025

At L&E Research, we believe that participant engagement isn’t just a courtesy: it’s a critical driver of research quality. In this guide, we explore four high-impact strategies that foster stronger participation, improve data integrity, and elevate the overall research experience. Grounded in direct participant feedback and decades of industry insight, this resource offers actionable best practices to enhance every step of the research journey.

Download the full guide to learn how thoughtful design and genuine participant care can transform outcomes.

Have questions or want to discuss your next study? Reach out to us anytime at hello@leresearch.com – we’re always here to help.

Rallying for a Cause: L&E Health at Relay for Life

DWG Admin on June 12, 2025

On May 3rd, members of our L&E Health team gathered in Cary, North Carolina, to take part in the Relay for Life, a powerful community event that brings people together to honor cancer survivors, remember loved ones lost, and take action to help end cancer as we know it. This wasn’t just another team outing: it was a moment that reaffirmed who we are, both as individuals and as a company. At L&E Research, we believe in the strength of connection, whether it’s helping our clients find the right people for research or standing side-by-side in support of a cause that touches countless lives.

The event offered our team the opportunity to:

Strengthen relationships outside of the workplace
Engage meaningfully with our local community
Walk in solidarity for a cause that affects so many of us

Through shared stories, laughter, and heartfelt conversations, we left the event more united and inspired. We were honored to meet passionate community members, survivors, caregivers, and fellow advocates who reminded us of the power of hope and the importance of action. And the impact? Together with fellow participants, our team helped raise over $84,000 with donations still coming in. This incredible outcome reflects the generosity, spirit, and unwavering commitment of everyone involved.

To those who participated, donated, or offered words of encouragement – thank you. Your support means the world, and it fuels our shared drive to make a lasting difference. As we reflect on this experience, we’re reminded that being “the people for you” isn’t just a tagline: it’s a way of showing up in every aspect of life. We’re proud to stand with our community in the fight against cancer, and we look forward to continuing this journey of impact together.

Smarter Strategies, Better Experiences: What We’ve Learned

DWG Admin on May 8, 2025

Welcome back to the final blog of our Challenging the Status Qual series, where we delve into L&E’s journey to enhance participant experiences in research. In the previous blog, we dug deep into how participation in research can become a meaningful activity rather than just another task. Now let’s look back at the insights from our study, explore how L&E is acting on this feedback, and share practical tips to elevate participant experiences across the industry.

Respect, Rewards, and Results: Engaging Research Participants

Understanding the motivations and barriers of qualitative research participants is key to designing an experience that will not only deliver valuable insights, but also foster engagement and fulfilment.

People enjoy being part of a something larger. It is clear from our study that the opportunity to share opinions is rewarding, especially when participants see how their input is used. This remains true even when the primary incentive is monetary compensation – many take pride in their contribution, find the process interesting, and value making an impact. One participant shared, “I enjoy being part of the process… Hopefully, some of the things that we talk about do provide some value”.

However, a common frustration is having to fill out long, rigorous screeners that ultimately disqualify them. This makes them feel rejected or used for ‘data mining’. Respecting their time by informing them promptly when they don’t quality, ensuring transparency on the process, and sending clear, targeted invitations are key. One participant states that L&E’s approach was preferable because “efficiency is a big thing with you guys, making it user-friendly to go from the email process to getting booked.”

It is no surprise compensation emerged as a top solution to improve experience. Participants are interested in gamified reward points they can accumulate for gift cards, as well as opportunities for shorter, paid surveys with no qualification screener – even when compensation is lower. These are adjustments that would make research participation more attractive and gratifying.

Best Practices for Suppliers and Researchers

Having heard participant feedback, we identified the best practices for researchers and sample recruitment suppliers looking to get better engagement and reduce participant frustration. Sample recruitment suppliers can consider these best practices to ensure participants feel their time is valued and improve their experience:

Leverage dynamic technology and smart technology and smart techniques to target participants, as well as using demographic datapoint tracking to improve acceptance rates and reduce disqualification.
Streamline all opportunities into a central member portal.
Clearly communicate expectations.
Offer rewards for screener attempts, even when they get rejected to ease frustrations around screens – a major point for many.
Referral incentives can also help your member base.

For researchers, keeping in mind these strategies can significantly enhance participant experiences and reduce frustration:

Be mindful when designing screeners: respect participants’ time by keeping it short, and only ask what is necessary.
Notify Participants promptly if they are disqualified and consider collecting profile information through a check-in activity or during the session, rather than at the screener to best prioritise their time.
Participants take pride in their contribution, so sharing research results, when possible, helps keep them invested in being part of the research.
Keeping discussions lively during activities is essential to maintain their interest.
Avoid further taking up your participants’ time by changing details that will affect and confuse things.

From Feedback to Action: Driving Participant Satisfaction at L&E

At L&E, we’re actively addressing this feedback to optimise our member engagement. Our team has been busy improving the user experience on our member portal: making finding and doing screeners more accessible, improving the survey experience, and simplifying the login process. We are also in the process of developing our mobile app, intended to enhance communication, especially with younger people, through notifications rather than email.

Gamification is now embedded in our process, allowing members to earn points and badges, translating to monetary rewards. Beta testing shows a 5% increase in engagement rate in just a short few months, demonstrating the power of a more interactive and fun experience.

We’ve strengthened our communications, ensuring that screener expectations, such as time length, uploads, are clear from the get-go. Enhanced technology will also further support these improvements, enabling us to better target participants based on their profile datapoints to reduce outreach fatigue.

With the insights gained from this series, we’re excited to see our participant engagement continue to grow as we work on enhancing their experiences. Our roles as researchers and sample recruitment suppliers extend beyond conducing quality research; it includes ensuring a positive, fulfilling process for participants. Addressing their key concerns will strengthen relationships and emphasize the invaluable role they play in our work, because, at the end of the day, at the heart of qualitative research are the people who contribute to it.

Injection Naïve: The New Unicorn?

DWG Admin on March 27, 2025

If you are a human factors engineer, medical device UX researcher or a healthcare market research firm, you have surely experienced a growing difficulty fulfilling injection naive quotas for your injection device usability studies.

There has been a dramatic shift over the past decade in recruitment incidence within the injection naive vs injection experienced patient and caregiver segments.

Historically, when designing medical device testing outside of diabetes, injection experience was the low incidence cohort.

However, over the past decade the pendulum has swung significantly in the other direction making inclusion of true lifetime injection naive patients and caregivers the needles in a haystack.

In order to successfully execute injection device usability studies, it is important to understand the current climate as related to injection experience within the US population.

Why The Shift In Medical Device Testing Recruitment?

There are numerous factors leading to the injection experience incidence shift over the past ten years:

Diabetes continues to increase in diagnosis rate annually and is estimated to now affect 12% of the US population rising to 29% in the elderly. While there is an abundance of treatment modalities available, insulin is the #1 prescribed injectable in the US. 23% of diabetic patients self administer insulin.
The rise in autoimmune conditions accompanied by the emergence of self-administered biologics. 10% of the US population is affected by an autoimmune condition. Of those diagnosed, 6% are prescribed an injectable biologic.
Approximately 10 million patients in the US are diagnosed with osteoporosis. Forteo and Prolia, both injectable treatments and prophylactic approaches to treating osteoporosis are delivered via at-home injection.
Hormone replacement therapy diagnostics, education, accessibility and affordability has led to 20 million Americans being placed on an HRT protocol with 1.2 million inclusive of an injectable therapeutic.
Allergies and anaphylaxis, especially in children, have risen significantly over the past decade. The CDC now estimates 1 in 4 children have a diagnosed allergy. With that, there is an elevated population of children, and subsequently adults, trained to administer an EpiPen.
The growing popularity and now widespread access of injectable GLP-1 agonists will likely be the anchor forever sinking injection naive recruitment feasibility. Millions of Americans have now at least tried an injectable GLP-1 for diabetic management and/or weight loss. These statistics are expected to continue to climb due to the abundance of recently confirmed positive clinical outcomes and widening of regulatory approvals.

Tightened Definition Of “Injection Naive”

Despite the growing adoption and prescribing of patient delivered injectable therapies, in recent years we have seen research designers, largely influenced by FDA guidelines, further narrow the definition of the “injection naive” individual.

Most impactful is “injection naive” defined as lifetime injection experience with any device for any duration of time.

This is routinely confirmed to include the injection of self, the injection of others, the injection of a pet, being trained to perform an injection including simulation into an injection pad.

By default, anyone who participates in an injection device usability study would then be considered “injection experienced”.

Challenges In Recruitment

Given the aforementioned rise in injectable therapies coupled with the tightening of naive definitions, recruitment of injection naive participants is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible in the setting of certain conditions.

The US general population is an injection experienced population. While this is great news for the injection experienced quota buckets, seeking patients and caregivers who are truly injection naive is rarely a feasible avenue in the US, especially in the setting of a chronic condition.

Recommendations For Successful Research

The most important factor is education and intervention at the design level should a device usability project include a naive segment.

As, once the medical device testing methodology is approved, it is incredibly difficult to walk it back and request flexibility and exceptions.

Below are recommendations for ensuring your research is well represented by an injection naive cohort while presenting a segment that is recruitable to your recruiting firm.

Including even one of these options in the design of your naive quota qualifiers significantly increases the incidence of recruitment.

Be Specific: Tailor your device experience to the device being tested. Autoinjectors, pre-filled syringes, injection pens, infusion and patch pumps, vial/syringe and wearable injectors all require different techniques of administration. Experience with one does not equate to experience for all.
Consider the Time Lapse: A good rule of thumb is 10 years. It is reasonable to assume, especially with the forever changing injection device design, that if an individual has not administered an injection within the past 10 years, they can be considered naive.
Be Open to Surrogates: If true, lifetime injection naivety must be a requirement, it will be imperative to open the pool. Especially in the context of a chronic condition, whether patient or caregiver, the recruit criteria will need to allow for the inclusion of proxy participants from the general population to represent the naive cohort.
The Screener: It is important that the developed screener clearly distinguishes between injection-naive and injection-experienced individuals. One must take care to ensure the final screener is fully inclusive of all devices, injection methods and time periods as is required to qualify for the research.

Moving Forward

We are privileged to conduct medical device testing in the US.

To maintain our progress and prevent recruitment challenges, it is essential for everyone involved in device UX to stay informed about the evolving trends in the adoption and prescription of at-home administered injectables nationwide.

This awareness should be integrated into the development of participant inclusion criteria. By doing so, we can ensure a seamless recruitment process for all parties involved: the client, the recruiting firm, and the participants.

Originally published on GreenBook.org on August 13, 2024.

Participant Engagement: What Makes an Experience Meaningful?

DWG Admin on March 5, 2025

Fresh off the press, it’s another of our Challenging the Status Qual blogs! In the previous edition we dove into understanding participant motivations and the frustrations that appear in the screening process.

Now, let’s shift our focus to what makes research participation not just a necessary task but a deeply fulfilling experience, and most importantly, how can we keep it that way.

Research participants consistently report that the process of contributing to studies is engaging. This engagement stems from a combination of the ‘big three’: intellectual stimulation, social engagement, and the tangible financial rewards that come at the end.

Intellectual Stimulation: Research Methods That Appeal To The Mind For The Best Results

Engaging with new products, ideas, and concepts is valuable for participants. Research becomes an intellectual pursuit that keeps them motivated and interested in the process. People consistently enjoy delving into topics that are thought-provoking and relevant to their lives and having engaging discussions.

This not only satisfies their curiosity but also gives them a sense of peeking behind the curtain, to explore products like never before. Discussion and idea-sharing further enhance their desire to contribute meaningfully and feel intellectually stimulated by the work and each other.

One participant stated that: ‘It’s always fun to hear what people are thinking. There are a lot of smart people here.’

Social Engagement: Research Methods For Creating Spaces For Community

Participants often value research as an opportunity to learn about new products and ideas while sharing their opinions in a structured and non-judgmental space. They find it rewarding to be in sessions where they not only express their views but also hear from others, taking part in a fun community activity.

One participant fondly recalled a group session where varied opinions were expressed respectfully: “Everybody wasn’t agreeing, but nobody was arguing. You can really kind of feel free to be honest, without offending anyone.” This open exchange brings about a comradery amongst participants, making them feel that their contributions are meaningful not just to a company but the group as a whole.

In-person research offers participants a dedicated space to focus, free from the distractions of daily life. From friendly staff to lobby refreshments, participants appreciate the comfortable environment and enjoy being able to test samples and prototypes in person with like-minded people.

The absence of common household distractions—whether it’s family members, pets, or the doorbell— allows participants a break from the everyday to focus on the research.

Compensation: A Tangible And Appreciated Benefit In Research Methods

While it would be fantastic for participants to be powered alone by the love of research, we must not overlook the practical benefit of compensation. Participants are often straightforward when addressing its importance: “Who doesn’t love to get paid for talking?”

For many, the financial incentive is a bonus that makes the experience even more rewarding. It’s never really just been about the money, though—it’s about the feeling of being fairly compensated for time and input.

The opinions of our participants are, when it boils down to it, what our clients need for best results. When we ensure that our participants feel valued through proper compensation, we, in turn, secure the best results for our clients.

Curating Meaningful Experiences Through Effective Research Methods

Ultimately, combining the ‘big three’ boosts engagement and makes participating in research worthwhile for everyone. By modeling our approach to what participants find fulfilling, we can enhance both their experience and the quality of the research outcomes.

Effective research methods prioritize participant satisfaction and meaningful engagement throughout the entire process.

As always, we encourage researchers to listen closely to their participants, valuing their insights not only during the study but in shaping future processes as well. Contact us today to learn more.

L&E Health Takes Strides in the Fight Against Type 1 Diabetes

DWG Admin on November 25, 2024

In the heart of Denver’s City Park, team L&E Health joined forces with the community for the Breakthrough Diabetes Walk, a vital initiative aimed at raising awareness and funding for type 1 diabetes research. This annual event is more than just a walk; it’s a powerful statement about our collective commitment to transforming lives and finding breakthroughs in diabetes care. At L&E Research, our mission extends beyond the boardroom and into the heart of the communities we serve, reflecting our core value of giving back.

As part of this year’s event, our team was thrilled to engage directly with participants—patients and caregivers alike. We understand the importance of listening to those affected by type 1 diabetes and providing them with opportunities to voice their experiences. Through initiatives like the Breakthrough Walk, we not only raise awareness but also expand our panel of dedicated participants. This expansion is crucial; it allows us to deliver richer insights and better quality data to our clients, ensuring that the voices of patients and caregivers are heard loud and clear in the medical research community.

Team L&E’s involvement goes beyond mere participation. Each step taken and each story shared at the walk underscores our commitment to improving patient outcomes and enhancing the quality of life for those living with type 1 diabetes. The event has been a resounding success, raising over $430,000 thus far, which will directly support diabetes research and initiatives aimed at making significant advancements in treatment and care.

For L&E Research, the benefits of participating in the Breakthrough Diabetes Walk are manifold. Not only do we expand our database with high-quality, verified patient recruits, but we also reinforce our position as a leader in healthcare research dedicated to making a real difference. Our team members, energized by the opportunity to give back and contribute their time to a great cause, return invigorated, and ready to apply new insights and experiences to their work.

The Breakthrough Walk is a testament to what we can achieve together for the diabetes community. It reflects our unwavering support for groundbreaking research and our dedication to the individuals and families affected by type 1 diabetes. At L&E Research, we remain committed to our foundational value of community contribution, striving each day to not only meet but exceed the expectations of the communities we serve and the clients we support.

As we look to future events and the continuous expansion of our research capabilities, we are grateful for the ongoing support of our participants, clients, and team members who make initiatives like the Breakthrough Walk possible. Together, we are not just walking; we are paving the path toward a brighter, healthier future for all.

Optimizing Participant Engagement: Tackling Frustrations in the Screening Process

DWG Admin on November 1, 2024

Welcome back to our Challenging the Status Qual series! In the previous blog of this series we looked at the real motivators for participants, now let’s focus on the delicate step of the screening process.

No one disputes its importance; however, it must be acknowledged that this process can often be a frustrating aspect of qualifying participants for studies.

While essential for ensuring that all the right demographic boxes are ticked and all relevant perspectives are represented, the often-arduous process can leave participants feeling like they got the short end of the stick. We’ve been exploring how we can improve the screening process to better suit them, aiming to increase participation, enhance satisfaction, and ultimately deliver higher-quality data for your research.

The Upside: What Participants Value

Screening has its ups and downs, so we checked in with our participants to understand what keeps them motivated to take part. One of the most appreciated aspects we found is early disqualification in screeners. Participants value their time; they prefer to know as soon as possible if they do not qualify for a study. This helps them avoid wasting energy on unnecessary questions that won’t be used.

Transparency in the initial description of a study is another key factor. When participants are clearly informed about the qualifying criteria—such as needing to be a cat owner or play multiple wind instruments—they can quickly determine whether these apply to them. This simple step prevents the frustration of going through lengthy screeners only to be disqualified for a reason that could have been clear from the start.

The integration of member portals, where participants can easily track their screener status, check relevant appointment dates, and manage tasks or documents, is another positive development. These portals not only lend the research an official air but also provide a central, secure location for participants to manage their involvement.

Clear communication throughout the screening process is crucial. Participants value direct and consistent updates via email, text, or phone, ensuring they are never left in the dark about where they stand in the qualification process.

One participant said: “You don’t know where you stand in their process of qualification. So, L&E makes it very user-friendly to go from the email process to getting booked.”

The Downside: Lack of Clarity

Despite the positives, participants frequently report significant pain points when trying to qualify. Low success rates and repeated rejections are major turn-offs. Many participants express frustration with lengthy, multi-page screeners that give them the impression they are on the right track, only to be disqualified at the very end. This experience can feel like a waste of time and effort. The repetitive nature of these lengthy screeners doesn’t help; participants often feel as though they are being asked the same question in slightly different ways, over and over again. This tediousness can make them feel like their responses aren’t being appreciated or considered, further diminishing their engagement and satisfaction.

Unexpected requirements within screeners, such as needing to upload a photo or record a video, can also catch participants off guard. If they are not able to fulfill these requests immediately, it can disrupt the process, forcing them to pause and return later, which adds to their frustration. Participants suggest that being informed of these requirements upfront would help them prepare accordingly and avoid unnecessary interruptions.

“I’m just not prepared to be on camera, and I didn’t know that was happening. So that can be frustrating because I feel like I have to stop and kind of beautify myself”, said another participant.

Finally, the practice of disqualifying participants based on recent participation in other studies is a sore point for many. Participants often do not understand why past participation should affect their eligibility, especially if the studies are unrelated. This lack of clarity can lead to confusion and a sense of unfair exclusion.

The Fix: Transparency and Better Communication

So, what can we do to improve this? There are several key steps we can take. First, we can increase questionnaire transparency at every stage—from study invitations to overall screener design—to set clear expectations and avoid unnecessary disqualifications. Prioritizing early disqualification and keeping screener questions relevant and concise will also respect participants’ time.

Additionally, better communication about time commitments and any special requirements before participants even begin can help them decide whether to proceed, preventing them from feeling overwhelmed. Reevaluating the criteria for disqualification, particularly regarding past participation, can help retain engaged participants who might otherwise feel unjustly excluded.

Minimizing participant frustrations with satisfaction is essential for optimizing the research screening process. By increasing transparency, improving communication, and refining the criteria for disqualification, we can create a more participant-friendly experience. These improvements not only respect participants’ time and effort but also enhance the quality of the data collected, ultimately leading to more successful research outcomes.