In a panel from Partnerships with Sites 2025, site and patient representatives shared their perspectives on whether or not the technology being implemented in clinical trials was actually beneficial to patient and site experience, and what they wanted to see from technology designed to make clinical trial operations, patient recruitment and retention more efficient.
The key takeaways from that panel centered on the importance of human interactions, understanding site needs, and leveraging technology as an enabler versus a replacement.
Technology can’t be a replacement for human contact, or a barrier to entry
The patient panelists both emphasized the importance that technology not be a stand-in or replacement for human contact. Sharon Rivera-Sanchez, Patient Advocate, Founder and Chief Executive Director, Trials of Color & Saving Pennies 4 A Cure, described the importance of the investigator of her clinical trial on her participation. “I believe that I’m only on the stage today due to the investigator,” she said. “It was the human connection. AI can’t replace that.”
Dr Patrick Gee, Patient Advocate, Founder & Chief Executive Hope Dealer, iAdvocate, Inc, also voiced that technology can serve as a barrier to information about and access to clinical trials. “ClinicalTrials.gov is a nightmare, and some people will just opt out and say, ‘I’m not going to do it.’ Certain technological tools, like touch screens, can be difficult for folks over 60. If you live in a rural area, you have a disadvantage when it comes to a lack of broadband access.”
“Technology has its place as an enhancement to the human factor that is so essential in clinical trials,” noted Jimmy Bechtel, moderator and Chief Sites Success Officer, Society for Clinical Research Sites (SCRS). “I think that’s how we should continue to navigate the sea of technology, finding solutions that enhance rather than replace.”
Finding technologies that fill needs, not add redundancy
The site representation, Mahasweta Dutt, MS, MRA, CCRC, Associate Director- Clinical Research Operations, Office of Clinical Research, Penn Medicine, mentioned sponsors were supplying technologies that didn’t meet site needs.
Large institutions often have their own systems, which include their own adoption curves and challenges, and additional technologies supplied by sponsors that don’t address site gaps, aren’t additive. “We have a recruitment platform that functions well at a large scale,” Ms Dutt gave as an example, but was challenging when it came to isolating specific patient populations. “Oftentimes, we want the tools, but the sponsor doesn’t have exactly what we’re looking for.”
From the patient perspective, Ms Rivera-Sanchez highlighted one very positive experience with a technology. “I was asked to review a site with certain science words I didn’t understand.” However, when her cursor hovered over a word, embedded artificial intelligence would explain the term. Dr Gee said that he had a very positive experience with an AI chatbot that demonstrated more compassion about participating in a clinical trial than he had previously experienced with an in-person interaction.
Human in the loop and technology not as a solution everything
Chris Gantz, Senior Manager Patient Recruitment and Retention, Takeda, emphasized the importance of humans in the loop on technology, not only to serve as an additional layer of security to make sure technology wasn’t preventing patients from participating, but also to provide that human connection.
“If a patient is trying to decipher next steps for a clinical trial, and you want to show them that they are important to the study, it won’t resonate unless there is some sort of tangible, human connection.”
Ms Dutt echoed that. Penn's trial navigators and liaisons still wanted to handle referrals and triaging themselves. Once patients got referred, someone from Penn would email or pick up the phone, and walk through the options with that patient or their caregiver.
Due to the volume of trials and patients, it was arduous but reinforced to patients that a real person would be contacting them. “It might be two hours, or 24 hours, but they were getting called back. Technology will take you so far, but you still want somebody to call you and say, ‘I’m here. I understand what you’re saying.’”
Moving forward
Ms Dutt recommended that every sponsor have a community advisory board member or patient walk through any technology a sponsor wants to use. “Your technology should be foolproof enough that any patient can participate.” She said that, for a patient in a clinical trial, using trial technology accounts for a microscopic portion of their day, when compared to everything else they have going on, so it should be as easy to use and as low a lift as possible.
She also emphasized the need for alternative planning. “If the power is gone, or the WiFi is out, or the phone isn’t charged, you have to have some sort of backup. You have to think through those pieces.”
Mr Gantz highlighted sponsors must interact and more closely consult with sites, to see what technologies they already have, to better understand the gaps they’re facing, and to figure out what technology is working, and what is not. He also recommended that sponsors check in with sites and make them aware of all the resources that are available to them. “We are in a golden age, when you think about the tools we have and how we’re able to engage.”
In the last comments of the panel, Dr Gee spoke about the necessity of coupling trustworthiness with any technology. “It’s about trustworthiness, consistency, having a credible message.”
