Walk the walk
Why You Should Incentivize Study Participant Feedback
Every clinical trial professional knows the mantra: we put patients at the center. Yet, ask a study participant how often their voice is heard, and the answers are uneven at best. Most feedback is anecdotal — filtered through coordinators to CRAs to PMs. All of whom are ferociously busy.
There is a tested tool for this: the Study Participant Feedback Questionnaire (SPFQ), a standardized, validated instrument designed to measure the participant experience. But here’s the missed opportunity: many life science organizations employ thousands of people who could normalize and model the very act of feedback collection.
What if sponsors, CROs, ACROs, research sites - the leaders in research were to encourage their own associates—many of whom are also patients —to contribute to the feedback ecosystem? What if organizations learned not just from trial metrics but from the lived experiences of those closest to research?
Why Participant Feedback Matters
The performance measures are well known: recruitment rates, retention, adverse events, queries, amendments, costs. Participant feedback offers the signals to gain real-time understanding of:
Barriers to retention before dropout occurs (e.g., transportation, communication gaps)
Opportunities for improvement—small but meaningful changes that improve trust and adherence
TransCelerate’s validation of the SPFQ demonstrates that structured feedback is reliable, actionable, and predictive of study quality. When applied systematically, feedback loops should reduce early withdrawals, improve adherence, and lower the cost of protocol amendments. When we ask throughout a study for feedback on the understanding of study elements, we can identify areas of lower satisfaction and address them. We understand from patient advisors that the SPFQ encourages participants to ask follow-up questions that might not occur otherwise. For example, if the SPFQ asks about reimbursement satisfaction, they might ask about the option.
Proximity Builds Compassion and Quality
As Bryan Stevenson writes in Just Mercy, proximity cultivates compassion. When employees engage directly in research, they see protocols and procedures with nuance and human impact.. The feedback will be informed and measured by their expertise. Employees who contribute feedback—as part of their own healthcare journeys—help create organizational “muscle memory.” They remind colleagues that trial participants aren’t data points but people with real-world burdens, anxieties, and aspirations. The benefit is twofold: participants gain more voices, and organizations strengthen cultures of quality and empathy.
Incentives Normalize the Behavior
Why should employers incentivize study participant feedback? Because incentives create culture change.
Modeling behavior: According to motivation research, when employees are rewarded for giving structured feedback in supportive, non-controlling ways, it signals that their voices are valued and meaningful.
Embedding participant feedback into operational workflows—much like how many companies incentivize safety reporting or compliance training—could help normalize feedback as part of quality culture
Recognition, professional development credits, or simply protected time for engagement can all reinforce the value of feedback and the commitment of the organization to continued improvement of the participant experience.
Practical Steps for Life Science Employers
So how can organizations put this into practice?
Implement pseudonymous SPFQ for any research participation: Optional and no need for protocol references or health data. Review the SPFQ and its addenda to see how easily it could be adapted for internal use.
Incentivize participation: Consider non-financial recognition for employees who provide feedback AND those who use the readouts for process improvements.
Integrate learning: Share aggregated insights back to employees and partners so they see the impact of their voices.
The goal is not just data collection but creating a culture of learning and compassion.
The Strategic Advantage
Companies that embed participant feedback gain more than “soft” benefits. They see:
Reduced protocol amendments
Improved retention
Potentially a claim about your team’s direct participation in research
The gained wisdom and compassion … immeasurable
At Hashimoto Consulting, I help sponsors, CROs, and investigator sites design and implement feedback systems that work—anchored by the SPFQ. From training site staff, to designing incentive models, to analyzing feedback data for operational improvements, I can help you turn feedback into measurable value.
Need help? I’m just an email or phone call away
Sources:
Buttgereit, Thomas & Palmowski, Andriko & Forsat, Noah & Boers, Maarten & Witham, Miles & Rodondi, Nicolas & Moutzouri, Elisavet & Navidad, Antonio & Hof, Arnoud & Worp, Bart & Coll-Planas, Laura & Voshaar, Marieke & Wit, Maarten & da Silva, José & Stegemann, Sven & Bijlsma, Johannes & Koeller, Marcus & Mooijaart, Simon & Kearney, Patricia & Buttgereit, Frank. (2021). Barriers and potential solutions in the recruitment and retention of older patients in clinical trials-lessons learned from six large multicentre randomized controlled trials. Age and ageing. 50. 10.1093/ageing/afab147.
Anastasi JK, Capili B, Norton M, McMahon DJ, Marder K. Recruitment and retention of clinical trial participants: understanding motivations of patients with chronic pain and other populations. Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2024 Mar 28;4:1330937. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2023.1330937. PMID: 38606348; PMCID: PMC11006977.
Greene, A., Elmer, M., Ludlam, S. et al. Evaluation of the Content Validity and Cross-Cultural Validity of the Study Participant Feedback Questionnaire (SPFQ). Ther Innov Regul Sci 54, 1522–1533 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-020-00179-3
Tantoy IY, Bright AN, Paelmo E, Moreland EI, Trost AN, Pasquesi J, Weaver C, D'Aquila RT. Patient satisfaction while enrolled in clinical trials: A literature review. Patient Experience Journal. 2021; 8(3):125-135. doi: 10.35680/2372-0247.1509.
Getz KA, Stergiopoulos S, Short M, Surgeon L, Krauss R, Pretorius S, Desmond J, Dunn D. The Impact of Protocol Amendments on Clinical Trial Performance and Cost. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016 Jul;50(4):436-441. doi: 10.1177/2168479016632271. PMID: 30227022.
