MMG

Approaches enrollment as a communications problem: study branding, patient-facing materials, site engagement programs, and retention alongside recruitment campaigns.

Agency retainer and scoped deliverables, plus media where applicable.

Whatever the structure, convert it to cost per randomized patient before you compare proposals. Cost per referral is the number vendors prefer to quote and the number that tells you least.

• Strong creative and materials development, including IRB-ready assets
• Retention programs, not only enrollment
• Comfortable inside large sponsor governance processes

• Agency scoping can make it hard to tie spend to randomizations
• Insist on a performance metric in the SOW

Worth it when: Large sponsors running long studies where dropout is as costly as slow enrollment.

Not worth it when: A small biotech that needs patients this quarter, not a brand system.

• Continuum ClinicalRecruitment and retention with strong site-engagement programs.
• Blue Chip Patient RecruitmentFull-service recruitment and retention, part of a larger marketing group.
• ThreeWireLong-established recruitment shop with a site-support emphasis.

• MMG vs Continuum Clinical — Communications-led versus site-engagement-led enrollment.

Ask for the referral-to-randomization ratio on three studies resembling yours, in the same indication and the same countries. If a vendor will not give it, that is the answer. If your enrollment forecast itself is the shaky part, our sister publication Rock Enroll covers forecasting and rescue in depth.