Making clinical trials human for the patients who need them most
Clinical trial recruitment has an engagement problem. Patients who qualify often never find out, and those who do face an enrollment process built around the research system. I shaped the MVP vision and led the work from definition through validated prototype over 8 months.
My Role
Product Strategist
Fractional Product Owner · 8 months
Client
Connect2Trials
Clinical trial recruitment SaaS platform
Focus
MVP Definition · UX Strategy
Stakeholder alignment · User research
Engagement duration
8 mo
MVP definition through validated high-fidelity prototype
Stakeholder groups
3
Patients, Sites and CROs, Sponsors: all considered in design
MVP flows delivered
3
Onboarding, Engagement, Community: validated and prototype-ready
00 · Context and Background
Product Strategist and Fractional PO, shaping a 0-to-1 clinical trial platform
Connect2Trials was pre-revenue, pre-code, and pre-product. Three founders believed better design could improve clinical trial recruitment. My job was to figure out if that was true, and if it was, what to build first. I came in as Product Strategist and Fractional PO, which in practice meant I was the person pushing on the assumptions before the team built too much around them.
My scope
I owned MVP strategy through validated prototype. That meant defining the product vision, running usability research, translating strategy into user stories and technical requirements, managing design execution, and running sprint planning.
The goal was to build something patients trusted enough to use for clinical trial enrollment.
The domain context
Clinical trial recruitment has a well-documented engagement problem. Patients who qualify for trials often do not know they exist. Those who find one face an enrollment process shaped by the research system, with complex language, opaque eligibility criteria, and no ongoing support.
Connect2Trials was built on the premise that better design could improve recruitment, engagement, and retention. My job was to test that through an MVP and get it in front of real users.
01 · Problem and Competitive Landscape
Clinical trial recruitment follows the research system, which leaves patients doing extra work
Before defining the product, I conducted a competitive analysis of existing clinical trial platforms across patient discovery, enrollment support, engagement mechanics, and multi-stakeholder workflow integration. The landscape was dominated by registry databases and sponsor-facing tools. Nothing addressed the full patient journey from discovery through retention. The patient experience was an afterthought in every product we reviewed.
I presented this analysis to Connect2Trials' leadership with a recommendation to invest in the patient trust layer first.
Patients couldn't find or understand trials relevant to them
Discovery was opaque. Medical language and eligibility criteria created barriers that patients couldn't navigate without clinical support. Competitive analysis confirmed no existing platform had addressed plain-language trial discovery at scale.
Engagement dropped off once patients entered the funnel
Without trust-building mechanisms or ongoing support, patients disengaged before completing qualification or enrollment. Usability research with patients confirmed that anxiety and confusion, not lack of interest, were driving drop-off.
No platform served all three stakeholder groups in one product
Sponsors, Sites, and CROs each had distinct workflows. Existing tools served one group at the expense of the others. A platform that required separate systems for each stakeholder was not going to scale.
Patients
End users navigating clinical trial participation. Primary design priority. Trust, health literacy, and confidence in the process were prerequisites for adoption.
Sites and CROs
Clinical teams managing recruitment and trial execution. Needed tools that fit existing workflows without adding administrative burden or requiring new systems training.
Sponsors
Pharmaceutical and research sponsors funding and overseeing trials. Needed visibility into recruitment performance, site activity, and enrollment outcomes in one place.
02 · Research and Agile Delivery
Four sprint-based phases from MVP definition to validated prototype
I organized the work into four phases, each running across two-week sprints with specific research and delivery objectives. Patient experience was the primary design priority throughout, but the platform had to serve all three stakeholder groups without compromising any of them. Research findings from each phase fed directly into the next sprint's backlog.
Phase 1
MVP Strategy and Roadmap
Define MVP vision, structure delivery, align internal and external stakeholders on priorities
What I did
Defined the MVP vision and structured delivery into three sprint-based phases with clear go/no-go criteria at each stage
Prioritized core user flows based on business impact, clinical user needs, and competitive gaps identified in the landscape analysis
Facilitated alignment across internal teams and external clinical stakeholders including site coordinators and sponsor representatives
Translated high-level strategy into user stories, acceptance criteria, and technical requirements ready for the design sprint
MVP flows prioritized
Patient Onboarding: simplified registration and pre-screening to reduce friction and improve conversion from discovery to enrollment
Engagement: health literacy tools and process transparency to build patient confidence during the matching phase
Community: peer connection and milestone structures to support long-term retention after enrollment
User stories and requirements framework, mapping patient, site, and sponsor needs across the MVP
The call that changed the product direction
The situation
The founding team had built their MVP assumptions around a platform that would work across multiple sponsors, multiple trial types, and multiple sites from day one. The pitch was broad on purpose: more addressable market, more investor appeal. But once I started running UX interviews with clinical research coordinators and site staff, it was clear the operational reality was much messier. A platform trying to serve every sponsor and every site at once, without an established trust relationship with any of them, was not going to get coordinators to change how they worked.
My recommendation
Do not try to build for everyone. Find one sponsor with one specific trial, sign them as a design partner, and run a focused pilot. Let that real engagement shape the product. I brought this recommendation to the founders with interview evidence from coordinators about what would and would not change their workflows.
What happened
The founders shifted the near-term strategy. The MVP prototype was scoped around a single patient journey, and the seed pitch was reframed around a pilot-first model. The prototype became the tool they used in those conversations.
What this demonstrated
The most useful research on this project was the kind that challenged the direction the team already wanted to take. The clinical staff interviews were not on the original plan. I pushed for them because the founders were building around sponsor and CRO assumptions, not the people who would actually have to use the product day to day.
Phase 2
UX Framework and Mid-Fidelity Wireframes
Define information architecture and interaction models for all three stakeholder groups
What I did
Led co-design sessions with patients and internal stakeholders to surface pain points that stakeholder interviews alone had missed
Developed experience maps, interaction frameworks, and user personas grounded in qualitative research findings
The interviews kept surfacing the same thing: patients were dropping off because the language felt clinical and distant. That shaped every content and IA decision in Phase 2.
Presented mid-fidelity wireframes to clinical stakeholders with recommendations for revision before moving to high-fidelity
Design principles applied
Health literacy: every piece of content written for a Grade 8 reading level, validated with real patients in usability sessions
Trust signals: transparency about trial process, timeline, and patient rights surfaced throughout the flow
Progressive disclosure: complex information revealed only when the patient had indicated readiness, reducing cognitive load at critical decision points
Product development framework, four phases from MVP definition through validated prototype
Phase 3
High-Fidelity Wireframes and Prototypes
Produce review-ready prototypes covering all screens and states for key patient tasks
What I did
Led production of high-fidelity prototypes for stakeholder review and requirements validation before any engineering investment was made
Detailed all unique screens and states for key tasks within the application, including edge cases identified in Phase 2 usability sessions
Managed design execution and sprint planning alongside a product designer, keeping delivery on schedule across both tracks
Trial matching: search, filter, comparison, and apply
Community: peer connection, milestone celebration, support resources
Sponsor and site dashboards: recruitment tracking and site performance
High-fidelity prototype, patient matching and community engagement flows
Phase 4
Usability Evaluation and Validation
Test with real users, refine based on structured feedback, validate against MVP goals
What I did
Planned and conducted usability evaluations with patients, site coordinators, and sponsor representatives across structured test sessions
Findings came back with a recommendation attached. Every revision had a rationale the founders could take into an investor conversation or a future partner meeting.
Presented findings and revision recommendations to Connect2Trials leadership with impact rationale before any design changes were made
Managed final prototype revisions to ensure the product aligned with patient trust requirements and sponsor performance needs
What the testing confirmed
Patient onboarding completion rate improved significantly with the simplified pre-screening flow validated in Phase 2
Health literacy tools increased patient confidence during the matching phase, reducing the anxiety-driven drop-off observed in competitive products
Community features were identified by patients as a key differentiator vs. anything currently available
Sponsor dashboard met performance visibility requirements without additional development scope
03 · Outcomes and Business Impact
What the founders had when the engagement closed
This was a pre-seed engagement. No code was written. The goal was to give the founders something they could put in front of investors: a validated prototype showing a better patient experience, and a go-to-market recommendation grounded in real research.
The prototype covered three validated patient flows: onboarding, trial matching, and community. It incorporated direct feedback from patients, clinical site coordinators, and sponsor representatives. The recommendation to pursue a pilot-first model with a single design partner came directly from UX interviews with clinical research staff.
What the founders took into seed conversations: a high-fidelity prototype, a research-backed MVP rationale, and a go-to-market framing built around operational reality.
3
MVP flows validated with real users
Onboarding, Engagement, and Community flows tested with patients, site coordinators, and sponsors. High-fidelity and prototype-ready at handoff.
3
Stakeholder groups aligned
Patients, Sites and CROs, and Sponsors all incorporated in the design architecture. Competing priorities reconciled through research-grounded recommendations to leadership.
↓
Development risk reduced
Modular design system and phased rollout plan gave the engineering team a validated build path before any production code was written.
↑
Patient trust and confidence
Health literacy tools and transparency mechanisms directly addressed the core driver of patient drop-off identified in competitive analysis and usability research.
04 · Reflection
What this taught me about building for trust in healthcare
Connect2Trials was a different kind of product problem. The technical requirements were manageable. The hard part was that every design decision had a direct bearing on whether a patient would trust the platform enough to enroll in a medical study. That raises the stakes on every UX call in a way that most digital products don't.
Learning 1
The clinical staff interviews weren't on the original plan. I pushed for them because the founding team was designing around sponsor assumptions, not operational reality. That research changed the product direction.
Learning 2
Breaking the MVP into three phases meant each one produced real findings before the next sprint began. That structure came from not wanting to discover the wrong thing after engineering money was already spent.
Learning 3
Clinical objectives and patient emotion have to line up. When patients feel confident during enrollment, they complete the process. That also serves the clinical objective.
Learning 4
Keeping the MVP focused meant cutting features early. Several items that looked compelling on the roadmap did not match patient mental models in testing. Cutting them early kept the MVP focused and the timeline intact.
