I agree with others in that a significant financial incentive may be needed to encourage participants. I dont see how it can effect the integrity of the trial as I thought we were just trying to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of detecting existing tutors in already diagnosed cases? I guess the fundamental problem is trying to convince someone recently diagnosed with a potentially life threatening disease to take part in a test to "test safety", meaning the treatment not necessarily proven as safe yet. I know a few friends who have survived cancer and the common factor seems to be even with Medicare and private health insurance they win against the disease but are often out of pocket $20k plus, not including lost wages. Seems Australia is following the "terrific" usa model of insurances and soaring medical costs.
If we want these patients to endure a trial that is of no benefit and still to prove safety of the treatment then surely they need a great incentive. If they are not being offered a significant reward something is very wrong.
another approach is to trial pre diagnosis on suspected patients? Surely they have much more motivation to find out if it works?
also. Is the trial phase 1 just to demonstrate safety? If so why do they even need recent diagnosed patients.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)