Fostering and maintaining a high standard for site engagement are key priorities for sponsors as they can enhance the likelihood of effective and timely trial execution. However, as clinical trials become more innovative and tech-integrated, the level of effort and perceived barriers at sites can also increase. In this blog, we cover site barriers related to technology fatigue and enablers that could help alleviate site burden.
The proliferation of technology fatigue at sites
In the WCG 2024 Clinical Research Site Challenges Report, 38% of sites listed “complexity of clinical trials” as the top challenge. Much of this complexity stems from the proliferation of digital platforms, protocols, and tools introduced to improve data collection, patient monitoring, and trial efficiency. On average, 60% of sites used more than 20 different technology systems per day. Each system comes with its own login credentials, training modules, workflows, and support contacts. The result is often a disjointed and exhausting user experience for study coordinators and investigators alike. This can create frustration, disengagement, and an increased risk of errors.
Furthermore, 25% of smaller sites reported difficulties with technology chosen by sponsors and 38% of sites believed the technology was inadequate. Similarly, a review revealed that healthcare providers exhibited fatigue, behavioral symptoms, high workload, and issues with engagement. This is at least partly due to complex workflows and extensive periods of technology use. Accordingly, sponsors should be selective about introducing new tools and could prioritize vendors that offer lightweight interfaces and low redundancy with other processes.
This phenomenon, commonly referred to as technology fatigue, is not just a matter of inconvenience. It can contribute to staff burnout, procedural errors, delays in data entry, and diminished morale. Research in adjacent healthcare settings has drawn similar conclusions: when providers are burdened with fragmented or excessive digital systems, it impacts not only efficiency but also behavioral engagement and overall well-being. In clinical trials, this can lead to a direct reduction in site performance, protocol adherence, and participant experience.
To address this, sponsors must move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to digital integration. Instead, they should prioritize fit-for-purpose tools that are intuitive, interoperable, and minimally disruptive to site workflows. Lightweight interfaces, consolidated dashboards, and thoughtful onboarding are key differentiators. Working with vendors who offer configurable platforms can help sites manage complexity more effectively.
Alleviating site burden by enabling decentralization
Beyond interface design, a powerful enabler for site engagement is logistical support that lifts operational weight off site personnel. Trial solutions that simplify or fully manage sample logistics, central lab coordination, or sponsor communication can free up valuable time and reduce administrative fatigue.
This is especially relevant in trials involving genetic or biomarker testing, where multiple visits or sample collections may otherwise be required. In such studies, at-home collection kits for blood, saliva, or other biospecimens are gaining traction. These tools allow patients to collect samples on their own schedule and send them directly to central labs, bypassing the need for clinic visits. This not only improves convenience for participants but also reduces visit volume, eases site scheduling pressures, and accelerates sample processing timelines.
However, the decentralized approach should not add further layers of complexity for sites. A recent study revealed that while participants had a strong preference for decentralized trials, sites did not. This was related to poor experiences with previous decentralized trials in which professional site support was lacking. This feedback highlights that without thoughtful implementation, decentralization can unintentionally increase site burden rather than reduce it. Ultimately, sponsors should partner with vendors who actively work to minimize site touchpoints.
Another crucial enabler for site engagement is early site involvement in the trial planning phase. Engaging sites during protocol design, feasibility assessments, and technology selection ensures the tools chosen are not only scientifically rigorous but also practically usable. Sponsors that co-create solutions with sites rather than imposing them tend to foster more trust, cooperation, and commitment throughout the study.
For more practical strategies on supporting research sites and improving trial execution, download our full guide on empowering site engagement.
