ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
How to Optimize Healthy Volunteer Screening and Enrolment in Clinical Trials: A Qualitative and Quantitative Approach to Evaluate Processes and Healthy Volunteers' Perceptions.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthy volunteers (HVs) are essential for phase I trials, yet their recruitment and screening remain resource-intensive and ethically complex. High screening failure (SF) rates highlight the need to evaluate and understand all aspects of the enrolment processes. We analyzed SF patterns in a large German HV cohort and explored participants' motivations, risk perceptions, and expectations regarding trial participation and screening procedure. We retrospectively evaluated screening results from phase I trials (2012-2022) at Heidelberg University Hospital. Additionally, we performed a prospective mixed-methods assessment with semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire evaluating recruitment, informed consent (IC), motivation, and decision making, distributed to experienced volunteers of four trial sites (October 2024-August 2025). Across 30 phase I trials, 900 volunteers were screened with a SF rate of 31.9% (n = 287), mainly due to laboratory abnormalities, medical history of concern, and organizational issues. Results from five semi-structured interviews and the questionnaire survey (n = 196) showed an overall acceptable satisfaction with the IC process, but identified areas of improvement in weighting of topics and risk perception. Although financial compensation was voted as the most important motivation, the decision process is multifactorial and an interplay of compensation, organizational aspects, and expected risks. We identified trial characteristics that are modifiable to facilitate interest in trial participation and provide data-driven recommendations to improve the ethical, efficient, and operational conduct of phase I trials. Furthermore, the results underline the relevance of addressing public perceptions and misconceptions surrounding clinical trials to improve willingness to engage in early-phase research.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.