L&E Research
Participate
Client login
Bid request
  • Focus areas
    • L&E Health
    • L&E Consumer
    • L&E Insights
    • L&E Legal
  • Facilities
    • All Facilities
    • Sensory Facilities
  • Capabilities
    • Qualitative & Quantitative Recruitment
    • Video Streaming
    • Virtual and Remote Facilities
    • Partnerships
    • Client Portal
    • Data Quality
  • Resources
  • Meet us
    • Meet us
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Focus areas
    • L&E Health
    • L&E Consumer
    • L&E Insights
    • L&E Legal
  • Facilities
    • All Facilities
    • Sensory Facilities
  • Capabilities
    • Qualitative & Quantitative Recruitment
    • Video Streaming
    • Virtual and Remote Facilities
    • Partnerships
    • Client Portal
    • Data Quality
  • Resources
  • Meet us
    • Meet us
    • Careers
  • Contact

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. 

Contact us today to discuss how we can support your research.

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

Woman-preparing a syringe

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.

The Real Participants’ Motivators

DWG Admin on July 22, 2024

Research participants have often been overlooked, but we want to change that. Working with our researcher partners, we asked participants what keeps them engaged and what drives them away.

With learnings from our popular webinar “Consider the Consumer: Creating a Better Member Experience to Increase Qualitative Community Health,” we’re challenging the industry to improve participant engagement, elevate the research experience, and enhance data quality.

In the first blog of this series, we looked at how to collectively enhance a participant’s experience. Next, we asked our panelists what motivates them to participate in research…

Beyond Financial Gains

“The main reason would be the remuneration that you receive. That being said, I’ve had the opportunity to be part of some projects that were interesting on their own merit” said one of our participants.

While compensation is a primary motivator for individuals to participate in research studies, the benefits extend far beyond financial gain.

Participants value the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to product development and innovation. They enjoy the interesting and diverse experiences that research offers. They also appreciate the credibility and legitimacy of trustworthy research firms.

These factors combine to create a positive and engaging research experience. This fosters participant pride and satisfaction.

Contributing to Innovation

One compelling reason people participate in research studies is the opportunity to contribute to product development and innovation. Participants truly value the chance to provide feedback that shapes the future of products and services they care about.

This sense of contribution is heightened when they see their input reflected in finalized products. This reinforces their pride in contributing to the innovation process.

Another participant said: “I enjoy being part of the development process of the things that we’re looking at and testing. I feel like some of the things we all talk about do provide value, and that products may get modified based on our feedback.”

Mix it up

Engaging and diverse experiences are key to maintaining participant interest. Researchers should offer a range of experiences that are interesting and varied, breaking the monotony of daily routines.

These experiences can include testing new products and technologies or participating in focus groups and interviews. Each study should present a unique scenario that requires participants to think critically, express their opinions, and interact with new concepts.

Such engagements can be intellectually stimulating and enjoyable. This makes the research process a worthwhile endeavor beyond monetary rewards.

The Importance of Credibility

The credibility and legitimacy of the research firm conducting the study are crucial factors that enhance the participant’s experience and ease their apprehension.

Research ethics play a vital role in building trustworthy research firms that ensure participants feel their contributions are valued and their personal data is handled with care and confidentiality.

This trust fosters a positive relationship between participants and research firms, encouraging repeat participation and long-term engagement with research, as well as encouraging word of mouth and referrals to other potential participants.

A participant said: “There are a lot of scammy research platforms where they pay you in points, and I feel like through L&E I was able to figure out what I should be looking out for in other databases.”

Being Part of Something Bigger

Overall, people often wish to experience a broader impact that transcends their immediate benefits. They want to become part of a thriving research community driving forward change and innovation.

This collective effort benefits participants’ morale and contributes to real societal advancements. The knowledge that their participation helps improve products and services for the wider public instills a sense of altruism and communal responsibility. This encourages participants to return to chase that feeling.

“Sometimes it makes me feel kind of cool, […]it makes me feel set apart from other people. There’s a little bit of pride in there, I get to help design (some products)”.

Building Trust Through Research Ethics

So, while compensation remains a primary motivator, the full spectrum of benefits includes the opportunity to contribute to product development. It includes the enjoyment of diverse and engaging experiences. It also includes the credibility associated with reputable research firms.

Proper research ethics ensure that involvement in research is not just about earning money. It’s about making a meaningful impact and being part of something larger than oneself.

Strong research ethics combined with recognizing and enhancing these aspects help ensure a positive and engaging research experience. This fosters participant pride and satisfaction. Ultimately, this leads to better data quality and more impactful research outcomes.

Posts pagination

1 2 Next
L&E Research

Focus areas

  • L&E Health
  • L&E Consumer
  • L&E Insights
  • L&E Legal
  • CondUX.io

Capabilities

  • Qualitative & Quantitative Recruitment
  • Video Streaming
  • Virtual and Remote Facilities
  • Partnerships
  • Client Portal
  • Data Quality

Facilities

  • Charlotte
  • Chicago
  • Cincinnati
  • Columbus
  • Denver
  • New York City
  • Orlando
  • Raleigh
  • Tampa

Keep in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Linkedin-in X-twitter Youtube
  • © L&E Research
  • PRIVACY