Why Participant Messaging Needs More Than a Shared Inbox

A shared inbox might seem like a simple solution for managing participant communication. One email address. A team of people checking it. Job done, right? Not quite.

In decentralised trials (especially those with rolling recruitment, app-based data collection or real-time monitoring) a shared inbox can quickly become a point of friction. Let’s look at why.

‍

1. It Lacks Personal Context

Participants often do not know who they are speaking to, and the study team may not remember what was said last week. Without a thread tied to a person, tone and detail can shift with every message. This can significantly erode trust.

‍

2. It Is Hard to Prioritise

When emails are flying in from participants, sites, monitors, and vendors, a shared inbox becomes a scramble. Important participant questions can get buried under system notifications or vendor updates.

‍

3. There Is No System-Level Visibility

You cannot easily track:

• Response time
• Resolution history
• Missed follow-ups
• Communication across channels (e.g. SMS and app support)

Without integrated tools, these gaps become risks.

‍

So What Works Better?

A structured participant messaging system should:

• Tie every conversation to a specific participant ID
• Show communication history across team members
• Allow templated but editable replies
• Log interactions automatically (with timestamps)

In short, it should behave more like a CRM tailored for clinical operations.

‍

Do Not Overcomplicate It

You do not need a call center or chatbot layer. Often, a simple in-app or web portal messaging tool linked to the study database is enough. The key is visibility and context, not volume.

If participants feel unsure, unheard, or forgotten, they drop off. When messaging is smooth, responsive, and contextual, they stay.

‍