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) 101 – Parkinson’s Disease
RWE 101 - Parkinson’s Disease Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to clinical evidence regarding the usage and potential benefits or risks of a treatment derived from analysis of real-world data [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Benefits of RWE in the Context of Rare Diseases
RWE 101 - Benefits of RWE in the Context of Rare Diseases Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to information on health care that comes from real-world settings, such as electronic [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Disease Prevalence vs Incidence
RWE 101 - Disease Prevalence vs Incidence Real-world evidence (RWE), derived from real-world data (RWD), allows us to gain insights into disease prevalence and incidence outside of controlled clinical [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Principles for Ensuring that Research Results are Reliable, Valid, and Objective
RWE 101 - Principles for Ensuring that Research Results are Reliable, Valid, and Objective Ensuring that research results are reliable, valid, and objective requires careful planning, execution, and evaluation. [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Why Should Non-Interventional Studies NOT be Promotional?
RWE 101 - Why Should Non-Interventional Studies NOT be Promotional? Non-interventional studies (NIS) are designed to observe and analyze data from real-world clinical settings without intervening or manipulating any [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Seeding Studies
RWE 101 - Seeding Studies Seeding studies, in the context of real-world evidence (RWE), refer to studies that were conducted by pharmaceutical or medical device companies after a product's [...]







