Insights from the field

What real studies can teach us about recruitment, retention, and inclusive design.

From overlooked assumptions to practical design decisions, these case studies and reflections explore where study delivery succeeds, where it struggles, and what teams can do differently.

Work with us
  • Recruitment strategy
  • Community engagement
  • Under-represented groups

Read time: 6 min read

A practical case study on why one paid postal campaign generated four sign-ups, while time spent in trusted local spaces led to twenty-five.

Read full case study

The challenge

A research team needed to improve engagement from communities that had historically been under-represented in similar studies. They wanted an approach that felt efficient, scalable, and practical within a live delivery timeline.

What was overlooked

The initial plan relied on a paid invitation placed through a community charity newsletter. The team had not reviewed prior newsletter engagement metrics, had not requested previous editions for context, and had not fully controlled final framing around the advert. Small changes in title, surrounding copy, or layout can influence trust and response, particularly in communities where research engagement already requires careful relationship-building.

What happened

The postal invitation cost �280 and generated a 1% return, resulting in 4 sign-ups. In contrast, attendance at a local community meet-up over 3 weeks generated a 50% return, resulting in 25 sign-ups. Cost was mainly limited to travel and staff time. The difference was not simply channel format; it reflected trust, visibility, and real-time dialogue in a familiar setting.

Key lessons

  • Request and review historical engagement metrics before placing outreach in third-party channels.
  • Ask for previous editions or examples to understand how invitations are likely to be framed in context.
  • Proof final materials before distribution, including headings and surrounding copy.
  • Recognize that trusted in-person presence can produce very different outcomes from indirect outreach.
  • Treat face-to-face engagement as high-impact but operationally demanding, and resource it accordingly.

Where support can help

Teams often understand the value of in-person engagement but need support to deliver it confidently and consistently. This is where Engage Intelligently can help through consultancy-led planning and augmented reality training that allows teams to practise communication and engagement in realistic scenarios before implementation.

Latest insights

Metrics & evaluation

Read time: 4 min read

Are you measuring the right engagement metrics?

Clicks and expressions of interest can look encouraging, but they do not always tell you whether an approach is improving meaningful study engagement. This piece explores why the wrong metric can create false confidence and why ENGAGEBASE is designed to make impact easier to interpret without having to dig through every paper yourself.

Editor's take: If a strategy increases visibility but not sign-up, retention, or representativeness, was it effective in the way that actually matters?

Read insight

Why surface-level metrics can mislead

Early signals such as views, clicks, and initial enquiries can be useful, but they are often interpreted as proof of strategy quality when they are only indicators of attention.

Why end outcomes matter most

What matters operationally is whether engagement activity leads to meaningful progress: suitable sign-up, retention through key milestones, and representation aligned with study needs. A visible campaign that fails at these stages can still create avoidable delivery risk.

Why interpretation is the real challenge

Teams do not just need more metrics. They need a clearer way to interpret what those metrics mean for delivery decisions and where confidence is justified versus assumed.

How ENGAGEBASE helps

ENGAGEBASE is designed to make recruitment and retention evidence easier to access and interpret. It helps teams move from raw activity data to practical decisions about which strategies are likely to perform in context and where adaptation is needed.

Digital engagement

Read time: 5 min read

Digital or in-person? The better answer is often both

Research teams often treat digital and non-digital engagement as competing options. In practice, the real question is when each route feels most useful, reassuring, and workable for the people a study wants to reach. This article explores why engagement is often shaped by emotion as much as logic, and why identifying critical junctures in the participant pathway matters.

Editor's take: Just because something can happen online does not mean people want to navigate it without human reassurance.

Read insight

It is not either/or, it is and

Digital and in-person routes should rarely be framed as direct substitutes. Most studies benefit from a blended pathway where participants can move between formats as needs change.

Different stages need different routes

A participant may prefer digital discovery, then want direct reassurance at consent, then shift back to digital follow-up. Route preference is often stage-dependent rather than fixed.

Engagement is emotional as well as logical

Trust, confidence, and reassurance shape decisions just as strongly as convenience. Even where digital tools are available, people may still want to speak to a real person by phone or in person before committing.

Identify critical junctures

The practical challenge is pinpointing moments in the participant pathway where mode choice has the biggest influence on conversion and retention. Mapping these critical junctures is a core part of Engage Intelligently's consultancy offer.

Evidence & strategy

Read time: 5 min read

SWATs are a starting point, not a final answer

SWATs can be valuable, but engagement strategies do not transfer neatly across populations, settings, and trial designs. This article argues for a more agile approach: start with evidence, monitor behaviour closely, and adapt along the participant pathway.

Editor's take: Evidence matters, but context decides whether a strategy becomes useful.

Read insight

SWATs are useful, but not universally transferable

SWAT findings offer valuable direction, but no single result should be treated as universally applicable. Population characteristics, service contexts, and trial design constraints can all alter performance.

Implementation affects what is learned

Even strong SWAT designs can produce ambiguous real-world outcomes when implementation differs from protocol, resources are constrained, or local context changes over time.

Use SWATs as a starting point

The most robust approach is to use SWAT evidence to inform an initial strategy, then test assumptions in context and iterate with live behavioural data.

How ENGAGEBASE supports strategy selection

ENGAGEBASE helps teams identify a more intelligent starting point for selecting and interpreting engagement strategies, without treating any single evidence source as a complete answer.

An agile pathway is recommended

A practical model is to monitor behaviour continuously along the participant pathway and fine-tune activity as new patterns emerge, rather than waiting for end-stage failure signals.

Need support translating insight into action?

We help research teams move beyond assumptions and design engagement strategies that are more evidence-informed, more participant-centred, and more realistic in practice.

Work with us