News
Talk to an Expert
Research by
Primary Research with 50 Sponsors and Sites

The ROI of Pre-Qualified Referrals and PRPs

Enroll 15% faster and save up to US$3M per Phase 3 study with pre-qualified referrals and a Patient Recruitment Platform (PRP).

Get the Full Report

We’ll email you a copy, too. Trialbee handles your details according to our Privacy Policy.

Report cover: Guided by Service, Powered by Technology Report page: Exhibit 1, sponsor satisfaction across the patient recruitment value chain Report page: Exhibit 3, sponsor RoI across conventional and integrated recruitment models
Preview the Key Findings
Sponsor RoI

What an Integrated Model Is Worth Per Study

For a typical Phase 3 study (1,000 patients, 12 months of enrollment), Everest Group models the savings when central recruitment services and a PRP work together.

US$1–3M saved per study, driven mostly by faster enrollment
15% faster enrollment, or about 1.8 months saved, at an estimated US$2.2M monthly burn

Where the Savings Come From

Expected savings per study, US$
  • Lower cost per enrolled patient 1.7–1.9M
  • Better referral-to-enrollment conversion 320–380K
  • Fewer dropouts to replace 210–230K
  • Earlier issue detection 100–120K
  • Less manual recruitment management 20–30K

Directional estimates. The drivers overlap and aren’t additive; faster enrollment captures the overall effect. Source: Everest Group (2026).

Inside the report

Three Chapters. One Question.

Where can central recruitment services and PRPs deliver the most value together?

  1. 01

    The Changing Face of Patient Recruitment

    Why sponsors rate pre-screening and outreach lowest, and where sponsor and site priorities meet.

    p. 4
  2. 02

    From Fragmentation to Coordination

    Sponsor and site RoI models, plus the Indiana Clinical Trials Center case study.

    p. 9
  3. 03

    Making It Real

    The barriers slowing PRP adoption, and a people, process and technology framework for clearing them.

    p. 16
Report page: Exhibit 3, sponsor RoI across conventional and integrated recruitment models
Keep reading in the full report
Exhibit 3: Sponsor RoI, conventional vs. integrated p. 10
Case study · Indiana Clinical Trials Center

Site-Ready Referrals. Less Screening Work.

The site used Trialbee’s secondary screening across three studies, with about 20% of its patients referred through Trialbee. Its team could also see the screening questions behind every referral.

For sites tired of chasing referrals that were never going to qualify

30% better referral-to-enrollment conversion
20% faster progress to full enrollment
15% less recruitment-related effort for site staff
30–40% more responsive patients than other recruitment sources

Outcomes reported by the site. Source: Everest Group (2026).

What sponsors told Everest Group

The opportunity is faster, more predictable recruitment across the portfolio, lower per-patient costs, and an operating model that scales with each new study.

VP, R&D Top 10 US-based pharma company

An integrated approach can help identify hard-to-find patient cohorts and facilitate their inclusion in rare-disease trials.

Director Top 10 Europe-based pharma company
Report cover: Guided by Service, Powered by Technology
Free download · Research by

Up to US$3M Per Study. See How.

Get the full sponsor and site RoI models, the case study and the adoption framework, then decide where an integrated model fits your portfolio.

Download the Report Talk to an Expert