Long-term Real-World Evidence (RWE) studies face significant challenges when it comes to patient retention, for several reasons:
[1] Time Commitment: Participants in RWE studies are often required to participate over extended periods, sometimes even years. This long-term commitment may lead to decreased interest and attrition over time, especially if the participants do not see immediate benefits from their participation.
[2] Life Changes: Given the long-term nature of RWE studies, life events such as changes in health status, relocation, changes in personal or financial circumstances, or simply a change in priorities can influence a participant’s ability or desire to continue in the study.
[3] Perceived Burden: Depending on the design of the study, the level of participant engagement required can vary widely. Some RWE studies may require frequent hospital visits, self-reporting of data, regular lab tests, or other potentially time-consuming activities. The perceived burden of these requirements can negatively impact retention.
[4] Lack of Engagement: If participants feel that they are just data points and do not feel personally engaged or valued, they may be more likely to drop out of the study. Personal engagement strategies, regular communication, and feedback are therefore crucial to keep participants motivated.
[5] Privacy and Data Security Concerns: In the era of digital health data, participants might worry about the potential misuse of their personal health information, which may lead to dropouts.
[6] Inadequate Understanding: If the participants do not fully understand the importance of their role, the relevance of the research, or the potential benefits to them or to society, they may be less likely to continue in the study. Education and clear communication are key to ensuring participants understand these aspects.
To address these challenges, researchers are increasingly looking to use technologies and strategies that can improve the participant experience and maintain engagement over time, such as remote monitoring technologies, digital health platforms, personalized engagement strategies, and clear, ongoing communication about the value and impact of the study.
Share this story...
Real World Evidence (RWE) – TMF Reference Model versus the Real-World Study Document Index (RWS-DI)
RWE 101 - TMF Reference Model versus the Real-World Study Document Index (RWS-DI) The Real World Study-Document Index (RWS-DI) is a framework developed by a working group of RWE [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – ISF vs TMF
RWE 101 - ISF vs TMF Investigator Site File (ISF) and Trial (Study) Master File (TMF) are key elements in managing clinical and observational studies. They are distinct but [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Study Conduct
RWE 101 - Study Conduct Once the study has been set up, the study conduct phase begins. This phase includes several key activities that ensure the smooth running of [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Monitoring
RWE 101 - Monitoring Monitoring requirements for Real-World Evidence (RWE) studies may differ from those of traditional randomized controlled trials due to the nature of data collection and the [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – eConsent
RWE 101 - eConsent Electronic consent or eConsent refers to the process of using electronic systems and processes to convey information related to the study and to obtain and [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Consent to Participate in Research vs Consent to Access and Process Sensitive Healthcare Data (GDPR)
RWE 101 - Consent to Participate in Research vs Consent to Access and Process Sensitive Healthcare Data (GDPR) Consent to participate in research and consent to access and process [...]







