Hearing from a variety of healthcare stakeholders is crucial to getting a full picture of the current market. One approach to this kind of well-rounded research is to listen to naturally occurring HCP-patient conversations. Being a fly on the wall certainly has its advantages; you’re able to (in theory) unobtrusively observe how these two groups move through a range of topics in an authentic setting. But true dialogue studies have their challenges. Below are some of the concerns we’ve heard from customers about ‘traditional’ approaches to HCP-patient dialogue research:

Studies are too time-consuming and subsequently cost too much.

 For one, in-office dialogue studies can be time-consuming to pursue, requiring analysts to sift through hours of data for only a few snippets of relevant conversation.

The data quality of the recorded conversations is unreliable and hard to generalize. 

Additionally, natural dialogue may not, well, naturally cover all points of interest for the client team. Subscribing to the quirks and whims of a real HCP-patient interaction means that vital questions may go unanswered. On top of that, there is no way to control the unique characteristics of every conversational nuance, so trends become harder to identify with certainty.

The ‘why’ behind what is said is unclear. 

Lastly, while hearing conversations unfold can be intriguing, it is often unclear as to what each stakeholder is thinking and what is actually driving key decisions. This is especially true on the patient front, as they can be notoriously quiet during in-office visits.

" solution enables clients to access relevant dialogue data more quickly and systematically than traditional methods—as well as understand the ‘why’ behind the patterns. In this methodology, our team of trained linguists intentionally designs two phases of voice research to simulate typical HCP-patient interactions, with authentic patient audio clips from Phase 1 serving as stimuli for HCPs in Phase 2 and vice versa. Through this approach, we uncover key moments that matter regarding the condition in question, its symptoms, and treatment options. From the specific lexicons HCPs and patients use when discussing symptoms to the larger communicative dynamics at play in a treatment discussion, we identify what is working well in the current conversation and where conversations can be optimized. Such an approach facilitates a broad understanding of the current landscape and provides clients with strategic, actionable insights informed by our experience across the spectrum of market research.

A Case Study: "Constructed Communication" in Action

inVibe recently partnered with a mid-sized pharmaceutical company in the dermatologic space that wished to understand how patients and HCPs communicated and felt about a particular condition. Specifically, our client hoped to a) uncover the natural language HCPs and patients use to talk about symptoms and treatments, and b) identify effective communication strategies and current misunderstandings between parties.

" solution: a multi-phase voice-powered research study. In Phase 1, inVibe screened and recruited 10 patients and 10 HCPs with relevant dermatological experience to participate in an automated phone interview, responding to questions simply by speaking. The most representative and thought-provoking voices captured in Phase 1 of research served as stimuli for Phase 2, where 20 patients reacted to the voices of real HCPs and 35 HCPs listened to the voices of real patients to create an interactive communicative environment. Then, we got to work analyzing the HCP and patient perspectives and synthesizing them into one dynamic report.

Overall, this approach yielded a rich data set and a plethora of insights into the diagnosis journey, severity and quality of life issues, the broad treatment landscape, and the specific class of treatments our client’s product belongs to. However, we identified three particularly critical gaps in HCP-patient communication with clearly defined paths for resolution.

 "The other thing that I'd like to share is my own experience where I had my first flare-up as a minor, prepubescent, and I was significantly thinner, was within the range of weight I should have been for my height, was not obese at all, was not smoking or partaking any poor behavior. So, what are the other factors that contribute to this disease? Because age, obesity, and smoking are not it." 

First of all, HCPs often approach initial diagnosis conversations by connecting patients’ bothersome symptoms to lifestyle factors like smoking and obesity. Though HCPs may perceive this discussion as purely informative and unproblematic, patients interpret this association as blame for ‘causing’ their condition. Consequently, patients either feel ashamed and are disinterested in pursuing further treatment or vocally disagree with this assertion and defend themselves. Either way, this sense of blame can strain HCP-patient relationships from the start. To remedy this fraught exchange, we recommended that HCPs forge a strong and trusting relationship with patients by reassuring them that they are not to blame for their symptoms, which may lead to better diagnosis discussions.

 "[…] If you're going to take the time to do the step-to-step approach, that means things aren't getting solved, so you're adding another layer to another layer to another layer. My advice would be skip the topical because they don't ever work for anybody. Go straight to the antibioticsand then, if those don't work, see a surgeon, cut it out." 

Secondly, patients and HCPs also have distinct perceptions of the standard treatment approach. HCPs regularly employ the stepwise method, starting patients off with topicals and progressing to ‘stronger’ options. However, patients express frustration over this pathway; they perceive starting ‘slow’ as a waste of time that only acts as a barrier to getting efficacious treatments in a timely manner. We advised the client to activate patients to vocalize their first-choice therapy and detail their symptom experience early on in treatment discussions, as patient preference and symptom severity may prompt HCPs to prescribe later-line therapies sooner. 

 "[…] there's a lot of side effects that go along with it. He said he's not too concerned with it, but I am because I wouldn't want to deal with those […] I'm open to just trying things, different things out, but I just wouldn't want to risk the different side effects and long-term symptoms and things like that." 

Finally, we heard skepticism from patients about the safety of the client’s drug class. Despite HCPs brushing over side effect discussions as something they’re "not too concerned" about, patients are certainly worried about what short- and long-term effects that kind of treatment might have on them. For patients, safety is a paramount factor when considering whether to try a treatment, so HCP nonchalance about it is frustratingly vague rather than reassuring. We suggested HCPs need to simply and transparently establish the client’s new treatment safety profile to mitigate patient concerns. Additionally, to garner more patient buy-in despite any hesitations about side effects, HCPs could frame the new treatment as a preventative and convenient option that keeps patients’ symptoms at a minimum on a schedule that works for them.

" approach is a quick and targeted way to identify communication successes and missteps between stakeholder groups—as well as the ‘why’ behind them. Our intentionally designed prompts paired with stimulating soundbytes evoke robust, pertinent discussion that illuminates crucial gaps in the conversation. With our insights, our dermatologic client was able to design appropriate, well-thought-out materials, including a conversational reference guide. Yet this methodology is broadly applicable. From rheumatology to neurology, from pipeline to approved treatments, we can make more impactful recommendations to optimizeconversation and improve product perceptions.

How inVibe Identifies and Addresses HCP-Patient Misalignment 

Mind the (Communication) Gap

In 2022, the FDA began developing a series of four methodological patient-focused drug development (PFDD) guidance documents to address how healthcare stakeholders can incorporate the patient voice into the drug development process. These materials indicate that the need to listen to patients is a clear priority for the FDA, and soon, it may be more than just a “nice-to-have”; we are likely not far off from patient input in the clinical trial process being mandated.

The second of these guidance documents, “

Patient-Focused Drug Development: Methods to Identify What is Important to Patients

,” highlights the benefits and drawbacks of various qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research types. In response to this guidance, we have shared how inVibe’s 

asynchronous, anonymous Listening Platform

efficiency and scalability of quantitative research

. Yet, when we pair our voice response design with our quantitative capabilities, we open up a new world of nuanced 

When considered separately, quantitative and qualitative research each have their own strengths. Quantitative research is scalable, quick, and cost-effective: a perfect option for hearing from a large sample in a short time. While qualitative research typically involves a smaller sample, it provides unparalleled depth and detail behind respondent thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Depending on objectives, there are plenty of reasons to use one methodology over another.

But if quantitative and qualitative are great on their own, they’re even better together. Combining these two approaches enables trial sponsors and CROs to get to the “why” behind the “what.” Through quantitative surveys, patients share 

 their thoughts are, often via closed-ended rating, visual scale, ranking, and yes/no questions. Qualitative research subsequently elicits 

these quantitative answers were given, offering opportunity for elaboration in an open-ended context. These complementary methods are sure to generate a robust, multifaceted data set regardless of context, but a combined approach specifically in the clinical setting ensures the industry is developing products and services that truly address the needs of patients.

The inVibe approach to mixed methods research

At inVibe, we strive to blend qualitative and quantitative mediums at every step of the process to ensure one story is told seamlessly. Let’s look at two key elements of a mixed methods project — design and analysis — to see just how integrated our approach is.

The inVibe research arm is one unit. While individuals in the department may have more experience in qualitative or quantitative research, we are not siloed by our expertise. This means that for a mixed methods project, we compile one team that embodies both our quantitative and qualitative capabilities. This team works together throughout the entire project lifecycle, starting with research design. All members first collaborate on the quantitative portion of the survey, designing a comprehensive set of questions that broadly elicits perceptions and behaviors across a range of topics. We then turn our sights to the qualitative portion, where we craft open-ended voice response prompts that probe on select aspects of the quantitative portion. By the end of this design phase, such a cooperative approach yields a unified yet multi-dimensional survey covering both general and specific areas of interest.

 Once all of the responses are in, we look at all of the data holistically. Since we intentionally devised complementary quantitative and qualitative questions in the design phase, we need to analyze them in tandem. Turning first to the quantitative findings, we gather the bird’s-eye view of 

 respondents are thinking. Moving on to the corresponding qualitative findings, we fill in the details of 

that is the case. The seemingly disparate pieces of the puzzle fit together seamlessly, providing breadth and depth around each theme.

Analyzing qualitative data can be messy, but the inVibe methodology addresses these challenges in a structured, standardized, and scientific manner. By obtaining 

 for each individual respondent and asking all respondents the exact same questions in the exact same way through pre-recorded prompts, inVibe is able to structure what is traditionally unstructured qualitative data. This scientific data collection method is what makes it possible for us to analyze both acoustically through machine learning and linguistically through our expert linguistic analysts. The combination of the methodology with the technology then allows our team to identify similarities, differences, and trends, and roll up larger sample sets to reveal speech emotions and deep insights.

In short, we believe that merging quantitative and qualitative research into a unified undertaking through our simple, systematic, and scalable methodology is the best of both worlds for clinical research. Cohesive design, analysis, and reporting unlocks levels of knowledge that is greater than the sum of its quantitative and qualitative parts. By understanding both the “what” and the “why” behind patient responses, we can make more impactful recommendations to ensure patient-focused drug development in your study and ultimately bring better and more personalized medicines for patients.

Using inVibe's mixed methods research to gain deeper insights

Listening Deeply: How inVibe gets to bottom of what patients are thinking

Clinical trials are important – vitally so. They are the science that needs to get done to help make the world a healthier place. However, as vital as clinical trials are, there are major challenges that every study has to overcome in order to be successful. Even leaving aside the uncertainty of whether a drug hits its endpoints, simply finding people to participate can be quite difficult, and retaining them can be even harder, especially if their needs are not being met.

This is where inVibe’s exclusive voice response offering comes into play and where listening can be truly crucial to designing a trial that works. How can you best make participating in a trial more straightforward for patients? How does simply listening to the patient at all stages of a clinical trial impact recruitment and retention? How can you anticipate what parts of a trial process patients will find most burdensome? Simply ask a few, and listen to what they have to say. This process of Co-Creation can lead to trials that are truly patient-centric, reducing the common, yet burdensome challenges they face, and helping to bring the drug or treatment to market. The trick, of course, is knowing how to listen.

Recently inVibe worked with a mid-sized pharmaceutical company developing a treatment for Parkinson’s Disease. Our client wished to understand how participants react to and interpret the Informed Consent Form (ICF), particularly regarding the Study Purpose, Participant Responsibilities, and Potential Risks & Benefits. This is a valid concern – if a patient is not quite sure of what the goal of a trial is, what is expected of them, and what the potential upside and downsides to participating are, they are unlikely to enroll. The task was fairly straightforward: have Parkinson’s Disease patients and caregivers evaluate the ICF, understand what was confusing or potentially detrimental to future recruitment, and recommend potential solutions.

To accomplish this goal, inVibe leveraged our voice response methodology to listen both effectively and efficiently. To listen effectively, we created a set of eight automated voice prompts for patients and caregivers to respond to. This voice response design created a structure that allowed respondents to speak freely, while simultaneously setting boundaries on the topics being discussed. To listen efficiently, we fielded this study with 17 patients and 4 caregivers in 72 hours, then we got to work on analysis.

“I thought the document was very thorough, and it wasn't overburdening. So, in other words, I felt like I could read the entire thing without getting overloaded with information. But it was very clear. The risks were present. The amount of time it would consume was pretty evident.”

Overall, the responses were positive. Respondents were generally able to explain the purpose of the clinical trial in their own words, and they found the decentralized design of the trial more compelling and less burdensome than a more traditional trial would be. 

, there were some important nuanced points that required further exploration.

First, some respondents were uncertain about whether they would be eligible for the trial. As anyone who has encountered this uncertainty in trial recruitment can attest, if a patient is not sure about whether attempting to enroll will be a waste of their time, they likely will not bother and self-select out of the process. We emphasized the need for absolute clarity on eligibility requirements to prevent potential harm to recruitment.

Second, we had some respondents raise the issue of how to manage any potential side effects of the trial drug. Again, this uncertainty can cause issues both with recruitment and with retention, as a patient encounters a problem, is unsure how to address it, and chooses to discontinue. Again, we proposed a straightforward solution: provide more information on AE management at the outset, as well as link to resources that participants can bookmark and refer back to when needed.

“I guess that the biggest potential risk and potential dealbreaker would be the spinal taps, of course. I understand that they are painful and risky, but you also have to consider that there are potential benefits like getting to know your disease better, and that should also be highlighted.”

Last, and perhaps most importantly, respondents flagged up the risks of treatment. Here the issue was slightly different; participants understood the risks, but not necessarily the reasoning behind them. For example, the trial would involve multiple lumbar punctures, which the informed consent explains clearly. However, the ‘why’ behind these punctures was left unexplained, which led respondents to call them out as a potential barrier to entry. While patients will implicitly understand that these sorts of procedures are part of the trial, we advocated for a ‘more is more’ approach to explaining the punctures as part of a diagnostic process and an evaluation of the treatment. A lumbar puncture is never going to be pleasant, but making sure that a patient knows precisely why it is happening and how it can help can make the prospect less discouraging. After listening to patients describe this discomfort, we recommended that the trial developer explain this procedure and the reasoning behind it as clearly as possible to get participants on board.

While patients implicitly understand that these sorts of procedures are part of the trial, inVibe advocated for a ‘more is more’ approach to explaining the punctures as part of a diagnostic process and an evaluation of the treatment. A lumbar puncture is never going to be pleasant, however making sure that a patient knows precisely why it is happening and how it can help can make the prospect less discouraging. After listening to respondents describe this discomfort, we recommended further explaining this procedure and the reasoning behind it as clearly as possible to get participants on board. What they needed to improve their odds of a successful trial was to listen, and at inVibe, that's what we do. 

How to Develop a Patient-Centric Clinical Trial with inVibe

Another Home for Listening: Leveraging Real Patient and Caregiver Voices

Recruiting appropriate and engaged respondents is arguably the most fundamental and challenging component of market research for the life sciences. Traditional qualitative and quantitative recruitment strategies not surprisingly utilize traditional approaches, which are single-sourced, laborious, expensive, and difficult to scale. Inclusivity and diversity have also remained significant ongoing obstacles, biasing results and making them less representative.

Here at inVibe, we take tremendous pride in adapting cutting-edge techniques and technologies to transform and optimize every aspect of the market research process, from recruitment to data collection, analysis, and reporting. Sensitive to legacy recruiting problems, we’ve developed innovative processes that are analogous to our other tech-enhanced omnichannel, multi-sourced, asynchronous, inclusive, and scalable capabilities. Here’s how we do it…

Step 1: Create an Audience Profile & Establish Screening Criteria

Finding optimal respondents begins with precisely defining whose voices need to be heard for our clients to achieve their market research goals. For example, if study teams  want to determine the effectiveness of patient educational materials for a clinical trial, then the audience profile for an inVibe study must generally match the inclusion-exclusion criteria of the trial itself: proper age, specified condition, prior therapies, and all other relevant qualifiers.

These prerequisite characteristics are then translated into screening criteria to ensure all participants are relevant for the inVibe study. Screening questions vary in number and depth based on the specificities prescribed by the audience profile and are administered through the same smartphone-delivered tech the recruited subjects use to complete the study. The inVibe experience is therefore seamless for participants from recruitment through data collection.

Step 2: Multi-Source Subjects & Dynamically Vet Them

How are candidate patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals found? inVibe’s recruitment technology (our “Bat Signal”) allows us to instantly reach out to multiple sources, primarily dozens of vetted panel partners, but occasionally opinion leaders, advocacy groups, online communities, and expert consultants as well. Clients may also provide lists, sites, and participants. We team closely to ensure all candidates precisely match the study parameters; while outreach on mobile tech helps ensure inclusivity, diversity, and proportional representation.

The sheer ubiquity of smartphones enables otherwise marginalized and frequently disenfranchised patient communities to actively participate in market research. Increasing representation from minority populations is especially important for clinical studies, and can meaningfully influence and benefit trial designs – where recruitment and retention remain chronic and arduous challenges, too, precipitated by neglecting patient needs.

Step 3: Data Collection & Quality Assurance

Once qualified candidates are found, the inVibe platform seamlessly accommodates and scales into a sophisticated data collection interface. Vetted respondents receive various stimuli directly on their phones, and are encouraged to record their candid voice responses. A 

hybridizes AI and machine learning engineering with linguistic experts to ensure these responses translate into meaningful insights and actionable recommendations.

Response quality is continuously evaluated

 to make sure data originates from the precise target audience and satisfies basic criteria, including completeness, relevance, richness, and emotional resonance. The dynamic nature of the recruitment and data collection also enables inVibe and our clients to flexibly tweak the evaluation criteria through increasing honoraria, extending field duration, changing the screening filters, and other quick adjustments.

By transforming market research for life science companies with cutting-edge voice-response, analytics, and reporting technology, inVibe has redefined each milestone of the process. From recruiting through data collection and reporting, inVibe empowers participants and the clients eager to hear from them with omnichannel, multi-sourced, asynchronous, and scalable tools reflective of how consumers are already engaging with personalized, on-demand services.

As patient and HCP populations are increasingly nuanced, demanding, and diverse, effective recruitment for market research becomes proportionally more challenging. Utilizing tech already successfully adopted by Apple, Google, Amazon, and other Big Tech giants, inVibe has revolutionized insight gathering for life sciences companies, while ensuring the privacy of its data for subjects and clients alike. 

Reach out to our client services experts to learn how

How inVibe Finds the Voices You Need to Hear

Revolutionizing Market Research Recruitment

Patient-Focused Drug Development: Methods to Identify What Is Important to Patients

" as its second in a series of four guidance documents about incorporating patient voice into the drug development process. The resource highlights the benefits and drawbacks of various qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research types. In response, Head of Client Services, 

how inVibe supports and enhances this mission of listening to patients

 with our proprietary Listening Platform, enabling clients to gather deep and nuanced qualitative insights with the efficiency and scalability of quantitative research.

Another key takeaway from this guidance is the need to alleviate the research participation burden on respondents. While hearing patient voices is essential to the drug development process, patients may be deterred from participating in research activities if the requirements are particularly cumbersome. To that end, research should be as easy and unobtrusive as possible to encourage engagement. Fortunately, the inVibe platform is the perfect tool for capturing the patient voice conveniently and confidentially.

Collecting rich qualitative data appears to be a fundamentally inconvenient endeavor for all parties, particularly patients. From the administrative perspective, traditional qualitative methods require finding a time that works for multiple parties, one-on-one in-depth interviews, or a focus group. Once the headache of setting a time is taken care of, patients must plan around this event, which can interfere with competing priorities. Then, they may have to travel to a location for an in-person engagement. Finally, the actual interview takes time, perhaps an hour or so. Hence, a "one-hour interview" can quickly require a more significant time investment and cause more inconvenience than initially indicated.

With the asynchronous inVibe approach, much of the logistical burden disappears. The prompts are pre-recorded and programmed into the voice response study on our platform. Therefore, patients must call in, listen to the prompts being read, and record their answers, like leaving a voicemail. Since it's not a live interview, patients can participate whenever and wherever they please. Whether it's more convenient for them to call from the bleachers of their kid's softball practice on a Saturday afternoon or their living room couch on a Tuesday evening, or if they felt too tired on Sunday morning but ready to call in on Monday morning, inVibe allows patients the flexibility to join a market research engagement on their terms and when they feel up to it.

Furthermore, the asynchronous inVibe platform saves patients time with our designed automated prompts. Since we don't "probe" as an interviewer would, we combine a couple of similar questions into one prompt, encouraging patients to elaborate on their own. Therefore, instead of having an interview that chips away at eight topics over an hour, each of our eight prompts immediately goes deep, leading respondents to answer all eight prompts in a matter of 15-20 minutes on average. Manager 

 that asking just eight targeted prompts concisely captures a breadth and depth of insights while avoiding respondent fatigue.

But don't just take our (written) word for it! Earlier this year, inVibe conducted a study among patients, caregivers, and HCPs comparing inVibe's voice response studies to traditional moderated in-depth interviews. We heard across stakeholders that they prefer our platform for how it facilitates easy and quick participation. In the video below, listen to one patient and one HCP reflect on how convenient it is.

Besides the time pressures in traditional qualitative research, there can also be an emotional burden when discussing sensitive subjects face-to-face with strangers. For example, medical history is often very personal, so asking patients to be vulnerable about the journey to diagnosis or what a bad day looks like with their condition can be fraught. Moreover, fearing judgment from interviewers or focus group attendees, patients may withhold information, painting only a limited picture of their experience. Conversely, we know from 

 that patients are more willing to speak about "embarrassing" topics on social media (Facebook, forums, etc.) than through traditional methods; the anonymity afforded by such platforms makes it easier to share specific intimate details.

inVibe's asynchronous platform solves this trade-off between collecting sensitive voice data and maintaining patient comfort by enabling patients to participate anonymously. When they call in, they do not see or speak to anyone. The recording patients listen to for each question is the only voice, and we only collect audio recordings in their responses. There is no interviewer they interact with in live time; it's just them, and they have all the time they need to answer the prompts without interruption. In addition, patients don't have to worry about a moderator's or fellow panelist's disapproving reaction, so they can speak freely without judgment. While opening up about challenging topics may never be easy, the inVibe approach works to remove common barriers that inhibit honest communication.

Listen to the video below to hear a couple of patients explain how speaking to a recorded voice is more comfortable than a moderator, reducing self-consciousness and vulnerability.

At inVibe, understanding the patient voice is at the heart of what we do. Our asynchronous Listening Platform makes it logistically and emotionally more accessible for patients to speak with us about their experiences. Collecting rich data while avoiding friction points familiar with traditional qualitative methodology enables us to deliver deep insights with low impact on patients' daily lives, just as the FDA advises. Are you interested in seeing it for yourself? 

Mind the (Communication) Gap

Listening Deeply: How inVibe gets to bottom of what patients are thinking

Another Home for Listening: Leveraging Real Patient and Caregiver Voices

Revolutionizing Market Research Recruitment

imagine

A Patient-Centric Listening Platform

/voice

/product

/resources

/use-cases

/company

@social