In clinical trials, success hinges on meticulous planning, seamless execution, and patient-centricity. As such, deciding which eCOA/ePRO clinical trial vendor to partner with can be pivotal. Often, this choice is fraught with the dichotomy between perceived risk and actual risk. And the tension between what appears to be a safe bet and what might truly yield better results. In this article, we delve into the intricacies of this dynamic by examining the scenario of opting for a lesser-known vendor over sticking with an industry leader. As well as how the perceived risks might not align with the actual risks involved.
Perceived Risks of Choosing a Lesser-Known Vendor
When considering a shift from the comfort of an industry leader to a lesser-known clinical trial vendor, a slew of perceived risks come to the forefront. These concerns are rooted in a fear of the unknown. The potential pitfalls of choosing a partner with less established credentials, and doubts about their capacity to deliver on expectations. The perceived risks include:
Lack of Experience: It’s natural to assume that a lesser-known vendor might lack the requisite experience to handle the intricacies of your clinical trial. The anxiety of entrusting your project to newcomers can indeed raise eyebrows.
Unfamiliarity with Trial Types: If the vendor hasn’t conducted similar trials, it’s easy to worry about their ability to adapt to your specific needs and challenges.
Limited Support: Concerns about whether the vendor can provide the necessary support throughout the trial’s lifecycle can be a significant deterrent.
Missing Product Features: The absence of crucial product features might cast doubt on the vendor’s capability to deliver a successful trial.
The Hidden Risks of Sticking with the Industry Leader
On the flip side, staying with the industry leader might seem like the safer choice, given their established reputation. However, the actual risks of this decision might not be immediately apparent:
Outdated Technology: An industry leader might have gained their status years ago, and their technology might not be as cutting-edge as you expect. Clunky, outdated systems could hinder the efficiency of your trial.
Patient Disengagement: If patients find the technology difficult or unfriendly to use, it can lead to increased dropouts, impacting the trial’s integrity and success.
Hidden Costs: While their brand might exude reliability, industry leaders are known for their expensive services, often accompanied by various upcharges that accumulate over the course of the trial.
Extended Timelines: Delays can be unavoidable, but not when it’s due to vendor backlog. Often, larger vendors have extended timelines due to their increased volume. And those could trigger delays that could make or break your study. Coupled with their propensity for change orders, you could be adding weeks, if not months, to your study timeline.
Datacubed Health: Navigating Beyond Perceived Risk
We present a compelling case for breaking away from the shackles of perceived risk. Embracing a more pragmatic approach to risk assessment. At the heart of this proposition lies an exceptionally experienced team, each member boasting over a decade of trial experience. This wealth of knowledge isn’t merely theoretical – it’s a culmination of addressing both common and uncommon challenges that trials can present.
One of the most significant concerns – patient retention – is a territory where Datacubed Health confidently treads. By guaranteeing improved retention rates, they debunk the myth that only industry giants can ensure trial success.
The Choice Ahead
When making the crucial choice between a lesser-known clinical trial vendor like Datacubed Health and an industry leader, it’s essential to reevaluate perceived risks against the backdrop of actual risks. The lure of a well-established name might cloud the underlying drawbacks. And the potential of an underdog might hold hidden strengths.
In the end, it’s about striking a balance between perceived comfort and actual value. Datacubed Health, with its seasoned team and commitment to patient-centric solutions, demonstrates that sometimes, the greatest rewards come from choosing the path less traveled – the path that aligns with your trial’s unique needs and goals.