Representative enrollment without a single ad dollar

Here is an uncomfortable industry fact: only about a quarter of clinical trial participants globally are people of color, while the diseases being studied do not discriminate anywhere near that neatly. The FDA has been pushing sponsors on this for years, and most of the industry's answer has been diversity recruitment campaigns. Ads, in other words.

We think the ad-based answer misunderstands the problem. People do not avoid trials because they have not seen the right billboard. They avoid trials because the trial is being run by strangers, in an unfamiliar place, inside a medical system that has not always earned their trust.

Geography beats campaigns

Our model puts research inside community physician practices, and community practices reflect their communities. When the investigator is the rheumatologist a patient has seen for eight years, and the study visit happens in the same exam room as every other visit, the trust barrier that campaigns try to advertise away simply is not there.

The practical result is that representative enrollment happens as a byproduct of where our sites are, across DFW, Houston, Louisiana, and New Jersey/New York, in practices serving South Asian, Black, Hispanic, and immigrant communities. Several of our investigators speak the languages their patients speak at home. You cannot buy that with a media budget.

Why sponsors should care beyond compliance

Representative data is better data. Drugs behave differently across populations, and a trial that looks like America produces evidence that works in America. For sponsors, our diversity numbers are not a corporate value statement. They are a scientific advantage that comes standard with the model.

If your protocol has diversity enrollment targets that keep you up at night, that is a conversation we would genuinely enjoy. trials@stryderesearch.com.