It’s true – clinical trials are asking more of sites than ever before.  

Protocols are getting more complex and recruitment isn’t getting any easier. Site staff are caught in a catch-22 – balancing multiple studies with different resource and staffing needs. At the same time, public scepticism about big pharma means sites have more questions to answer. And more trust to build.¹  

The to-do list keeps growing, the information gap is widening, and the demands keep stacking up. But the hours in the day haven’t changed. That makes the Investigator Meeting (IM) a key moment to build clear understanding of the study – and turn that understanding into action.  

Of course, there’s plenty to communicate. But an IM should be about more than simply getting through the slides.  When you have the people responsible for bringing a study to life all in one room, you have something so much more valuable than an audience. You have a room full of experience, ideas, questions, and perspectives, and an opportunity to draw on all of this.  

That’s where a great IM makes the difference. More than a briefing, it’s an opportunity to engage people, spark conversation and inspire action towards a shared goal.

‍Don’t just inform. Involve.  

There’ll always be a lot to get through.

The temptation to pack in the slides and cover every base is understandable. But information delivered isn’t necessarily information understood. And understanding something doesn’t always mean feeling confident putting it into practice.

So why not change the ask? Instead of ‘What do sites need to know?’ ask ‘What do sites need to do?’. That helps us shift our mindset to designing the meeting around participation and empowerment. Giving people problems to solve, scenarios to explore and opportunities to question, challenge and contribute.  

Put the room to work  

The most valuable voice in the room might not be on the stage. ‍

Sites arrive with something you can’t put in a protocol: experience. They know the realities of running a trial – from engaging and supporting patients to navigating study procedures – and they’ve seen first-hand what works and what doesn’t.  

A successful IM gives that experience somewhere to go – turning site expertise into real trial momentum. Peer learning and co-creation offers sites the chance to swap notes, share what’s working and tackle challenges together. For sponsors, it’s a chance to hear what’s happening on the ground and to catch questions or potential roadblocks early. Before they become problems.  

And the value goes beyond the meeting itself. An IM brings together people who might otherwise only cross paths through routine study updates. From Clinical Research Coordinators and Principal Investigators to sponsors and partners, it’s a chance for them to get to know the people behind the roles, understand where each other is coming from and open up more honest conversation.  

That connection can continue long after the meeting ends, making it easier to raise challenges and work through them together as the study progresses. That’s ultimately how a study community starts to take shape – not just people involved in the same trial, but people connected by how they deliver it. ²

The meeting starts before anyone enters the room

An IM shouldn’t begin with a calendar invite and end with a room full of people waiting for the last slide. The experience starts much earlier.  ‍

Done well, everything that happens before the meeting builds anticipation. Send out a teaser so you know they’ll want to hear more. Pre-event surveys can uncover which parts of a protocol are leaving people stumped and what sites need to clarify. Get people thinking ahead of time. Give them a sense of purpose. A reason to show up and contribute. This way you’re not starting from zero – you’ve already got people curious and ready to make an impact.  

And once they’re there – keep earning their attention

If we want people to interact differently, the experience itself needs to feel different. ‍

This isn’t about adding interaction for interaction's sake – we’ve all run out of 3-interesting-facts-about-ourselves – or turning serious scientific content into entertainment. Instead, it means designing the experience around what you want people to understand, feel, or do.

Could a patient perspective make an abstract recruitment challenge tangible? Could a realistic scenario reveal more than another presentation ever would? Could an interactive exercise with sites uncover different approaches and bring fresh perspectives?

The unexpected can make a meeting memorable. After all, if you want someone to do something, you've got to get their attention first, only then do they feel compelled enough to act. But novelty alone isn’t the point. The best IMs surprise people for a reason – and leave them with something worth remembering. ‍

Memorable is only valuable when it’s useful

It’s an approach we’ve taken to Investigator Meetings at Langland for years, always with the same goal – to make a positive difference to clinical trials.  Along the way, that work has been recognised across the industry - most recently our work in oncolytic virus research has been shortlisted at the Communiqué Awards and PMis.

The recognition is welcome. But what matters more is what the work has taught us - creativity can make a real difference to clinical trials. And it’s at its most impactful when grounded in science, shaped by knowledge and focused on solving genuine human and operational needs.

An IM is one of the most valuable opportunities to set up a trial for success. Done well, it brings people together, builds confidence in the protocol and gives sites a reason to feel invested in delivering it well.

Because the goal isn’t simply to inform. It’s to inspire site teams to play their part in making the study as successful as it can be – for sponsors, for sites, for patients and for what comes next.

‍

Reference

1. Pollock, H. (2026) Overcoming public skepticism in clinical trials. [online] Available from: https://www.imperialcrs.com/blog/clinical-trial-materials-writing-design-printing/overcoming-public-skepticism-in-clinical-trials/ (Accessed 21 September 2026).

2. Peralta, G. & Sánchez-Santiago, B. (2024) Navigating the challenges of clinical trial professionals in the healthcare sector. [online] Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11181308/ (Accessed 21 September 2026).

‍