arbiter
JournalsAccount

Bedside manner or technical quality? Building advocacy for clinical trial participation via rapport

Rory Mulcahy et al.

Health Marketing Quarterly2025https://doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2025.2543660article
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Encouraging clinical trial participation remains a critical endeavour despite sustained efforts. This research aims to introduce a novel approach to promoting clinical trial participation, leveraging existing participants as advocates for others to participate. The study analysed 166 survey responses from Australian clinical trial participants. The results demonstrate that enhanced rapport between clinical trial participants and trial staff and technical quality are significantly associated with increased advocacy among current trial participants. Additionally, potential variations in these relationships concerning trial type, participant age, and sex are explored. This research on health marketing suggests that strategies for recruiting new participants should leverage patient advocacy, which is fostered by strong patient-staff rapport and perceived technical quality. Significant health marketing implications emerge, indicating that campaigns and trial experiences must be tailored to account for variations in how rapport and technical quality influence advocacy, based on factors such as patient sex, age, and trial type.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2025.2543660

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{rory2025,
  title        = {{Bedside manner or technical quality? Building advocacy for clinical trial participation via rapport}},
  author       = {Rory Mulcahy et al.},
  journal      = {Health Marketing Quarterly},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2025.2543660},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Bedside manner or technical quality? Building advocacy for clinical trial participation via rapport

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.