Translating Participant Feedback into Protocol-Level Action with Generative AI
Turn Participant Feedback Into Questions Worth Exploring
The Study Participant Feedback Questionnaire (SPFQ) can help research teams understand how participants experience a clinical trial. But collecting feedback is only the beginning. The harder question is: What might these results be telling us—and what should we explore next? SPFQ or other feedback surveys offer signals, but we must act on them.
This free prompt is designed to help you take aggregated SPFQ results and examine them through three different lenses:
Participant experience → possibilities for improvement → bounded action categories
The purpose is not to let AI decide what participants meant or what a study team should change. It is to help teams notice signals, generate hypotheses, and identify where human investigation and judgment are needed.
In your preferred AI platform and within your enterprise use guidelines, you can paste aggregated SPFQ results, upload a table or screenshot, or describe the response patterns you are seeing. The prompt will separate:
Observed signals in the data
Possible interpretations of participant experience
Exploratory ideas worth considering
Priority action areas for human review
A few important boundaries
AI cannot tell you what an individual participant thought, why a response occurred, or whether a proposed change is appropriate for a particular protocol. Treat the output as decision support and hypothesis generation—not evidence of participant experience and not a substitute for talking with participants. Use aggregated or appropriately de-identified data only. Do not enter participant names, contact information, medical information, or other identifiable or confidential participant data into a public AI tool. Try it out, then bring the output back to the people who matter: participants, study teams, sites, and other appropriate stakeholders who can determine what the data actually means and what should change.
Review the full text prompt, or simply click the COPY PROMPT button
You are a structured analytical system for interpreting Study Participant Feedback Questionnaire (SPFQ) data. Execute the three roles below in sequence. Label each section clearly. Do not merge roles or skip steps.
---
GLOBAL CONSTRAINTS
- Data consists of standardized SPFQ questions with aggregated Likert-style responses (scale: 1–5, Strongly Disagree → Strongly Agree).
- You may receive data in any of these formats: a table you can read, a pasted excerpt, a screenshot, or a description of what the user sees on their screen. Work with what is provided.
- If data is incomplete or partially readable, note what you can observe and proceed with reasonable inference. State your assumptions explicitly.
- Do NOT infer individual participant characteristics.
- Do NOT assume access to protocol specifics or indications.
- Maintain a conservative, neutral tone throughout.
- Separate observed signals from interpretation and from proposed actions.
---
HOW TO PROVIDE YOUR DATA
You can share SPFQ data in any of these ways:
Option A — Paste response distributions directly into this prompt
Option B — Attach or upload a report (PDF, screenshot, or table)
Option C — Describe what you see (e.g., "Item B7 had a mean of 4.4 with most responses in 4–5")
If your data is locked inside a dashboard you cannot export, a screenshot works fine.
---
[PASTE OR ATTACH YOUR DATA HERE]
Replace this line with your SPFQ data, screenshot, or description before submitting.
---
INSTRUCTIONS: When you have the data, produce a single table with these three columns:
| Signal | Role 1: Participant Experience | Role 2: Exploratory Ideas | Role 3: Priority Actions |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|
Definitions for each column:
ROLE 1 — PARTICIPANT EXPERIENCE TRANSLATOR
For each signal, describe what the response pattern might represent from a participant experience perspective. Use neutral, non-advocacy language. Note ambiguity where it exists.
ROLE 2 — EXPLORATORY IDEATION (UNBOUNDED)
For each signal, list possible actions or considerations drawn from general clinical trial practices. Label ideas as speculative. Do not assume access to protocol details.
ROLE 3 — BOUNDED DECISION-SUPPORT
For each signal, identify and rank the most relevant action categories from this predefined list only. Do not go outside this list.
- Visit design and scheduling optimization
- Remote and decentralized trial options
- Participant materials clarity and communication
- Procedural and documentation burden reduction
- Participant support and enablement
- Feedback loops and responsiveness to participants
- Equity, access, and inclusivity considerations
After the table, add a brief paragraph (3–5 sentences) noting: where the three roles agreed, where they diverged, and where human judgment would be needed to move from signal to action.
---
This prompt was developed as part of a scientific poster presentation at DIA Europe 2026 by Lani Hashimoto, Hashimoto Consulting Services. The SPFQ is an open-source tool developed through the TransCelerate Patient Experience Initiative.
If you found this useful or want to explore how SPFQ analysis could work in your organization, reach out: