Flyers for Research Study Recruitment: Fewer Calls, Better Callers

In an analysis of randomized surgical trials, 54.1% failed to reach their target enrollment [1]. A flyer is a common first attempt to close that gap, yet a team can paper every board on campus, receive two calls, neither from an eligible person, because most flyer advice stops at a finished example and never says what the sheet has to do. The answer is a flyer that passes IRB review, lets the right people recognize themselves in plain language, offers a one-step sign-up path and sits inside a wider channel plan. Refero does not run recruitment campaigns. We vet and match the clinical research marketing agencies that do, so what follows is written for the buyer, from what those vendors need and see.

Research study recruitment flyers at a glance

Published trials show recruitment shortfalls are common, flyers sometimes contribute little to the people a study randomizes, and the better yields in the trials below came from approaches that reach identified patients through clinicians, portals and mailings.

• 54.1% of randomized surgical trials miss their target enrollment [1]
• 1 of 161 randomized participants in a physical-activity trial came through a brochure or flyer [8]
• 16.8% of people approached in clinic enrolled in a pragmatic trial, against 4.2% of those sent electronic messages [11]
• Online recruitment cost US $72 per enrollee against US $199 offline (medians) in a meta-analysis of studies that reported cost [13]
• Across 68 studies of recruitment strategies, only three comparisons rested on high-certainty evidence [15]

What a Research Study Recruitment Flyer Must Include

A research study recruitment flyer needs eight things to read as complete to an IRB: a plain title, the purpose of the research, a summary of eligibility, the visits and time involved, the location or remote format, any compensation, a contact route with a way to respond, and the IRB reference. FDA's list for study advertisements covers the investigator or facility, the condition or purpose, summary eligibility criteria, the time commitment, the location and the person to contact [2]. Institutional rules add detail, so the checklist below follows FDA and two university IRB sources.

1. Plain title. One short line that states the aim of the study in audience-friendly language [4].
2. Purpose. A sentence on what the research is studying, without scientific jargon [4].
3. Eligibility. A bulleted summary of the main criteria [2][4].
4. Visits and time. How many visits, how long each takes and how long the study runs [4].
5. Location. The facility name and address [4], or a plain statement that the study is remote.
6. Compensation. What participants receive, worded as described below.
7. Contact and sign-up path. An institutional email, phone number or website rather than a personal contact [4], plus a one-step route such as a QR code or short link.
8. Investigator and IRB reference. The principal investigator's name and department [4], and the study title and IRB number where the institution requires them [3].

IRBs review how the flyer looks as well as what it says, because FDA expects the IRB to examine the final printed copy for the relative size of type and other visual effects [2]. Payment may be stated, but it should not be emphasized by larger or bold type [2], and Missouri's guidance extends that to italics and underlining [4]. Whether a dollar figure appears is a local rule: Utah's guidance allows the amount, yet notes the IRB may judge a specific figure unduly influential and ask for a line saying only that compensation is offered [5]. Check your own IRB's rule before you design the layout, because it changes what the compensation line can say. Once the IRB approves the flyer, any later revision goes back for review [4].

Some claims stay off the sheet. FDA says an advertisement should make no explicit or implied claim that the drug, biologic or device is safe or effective for the purpose under investigation, should not call it a "new treatment" without explaining it is investigational, and should not promise "free medical treatment" when subjects are only not charged for taking part [2]. Northwestern's guidance adds claims that state or imply a favorable outcome is certain [3]. This is general information, not legal advice; confirm with regulatory counsel and the IRB of record.

A flyer that carries every element can still fail the two-second test, which turns on wording: a passer-by should know in two seconds whether the study is for them.

How to Word a Study Recruitment Flyer So the Right People Respond

Plain language is wording the reader understands the first time they read it [7], so write the headline as a question an eligible person would answer yes to and write each eligibility bullet the way a patient would check it. CDC's plain-language guidance favors everyday words, active voice and sentences of about 20 words with one idea each [7], and NIH asks that recruitment materials be clear, easy to understand and appropriate for the intended audience [6]. Neither source sets one grade level for a flyer, so test the draft on a few people from the eligible population and rewrite whatever they stumble over.

An illustrative before and after shows the move. The jargon headline, "Phase II Investigation of an Oral Anti-Inflammatory Agent in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis," becomes "Have you had plaque psoriasis for six months or more? You may be able to join a research study." The second version names the condition in the reader's terms and invites a yes or no. If the same headline will later run as a paid ad, check the ad platform's health advertising policy first, because copy written for a flyer can break rules that apply only to ads.

Illustrative criteria rewritten as questions a reader can answer without help.

Each rewritten bullet is a question the reader can answer alone, so a "no" ends the interaction before it becomes a call, which is how a flyer brings fewer but better callers. Plain, understandable language is the documented rule; whether a patient's own words or symptom-specific lines outperform clinical wording is something to test with your own eligible population. The same copy reaches more readers in large type and high contrast, and in translated versions where the eligible population needs them; patient or community advisors can test it before submission.

The Recruitment Email and Sign-Up Path Beside the Flyer

A one-step response path gives the flyer a QR code or short link alongside the phone number and email, and NIH's guidance says to link a QR code to ClinicalTrials.gov or another IRB-approved study webpage [6]. Where that QR code leads decides whether it counts as recruitment or screening, and the line falls at anything that records a person's eligibility answers. A QR code that leads to a study page with a summary and contact details is recruitment. A QR code that leads to a form asking eligibility questions is a screening step, which NIH treats as part of the recruitment process [6], so the IRB should approve the form. If the study team sits inside a HIPAA covered entity such as a hospital or clinic, using those answers for research generally needs either the person's written authorization or an IRB or privacy board waiver of it [16], so ask your privacy office which route the form takes before it goes live.

The recruitment email follows the same logic. It carries the flyer's eight elements in shorter form, with the sign-up link in the first lines, and it goes to the IRB with the flyer so one review covers both.

The flyer also starts a funnel, and someone has to own it. Name who answers the phone and the form, agree how quickly they respond, and count people from response to pre-screen to consent, because a flyer that earns interest and then waits days for a reply loses people the study has already paid to reach. Set a response-time target from your own staffing and review it against the counts.

Where to Post Flyers for Research Study Recruitment

Where eligible people already are matters more than the number of boards covered, because posting by volume is a weak strategy: in the trials below, flyers produced many calls in one study and almost no randomized participants in another. In the physical-activity trial for breast cancer survivors, 88.2% of those randomized came through targeted mailings and 0.6% through brochures or flyers, and flyers cost $5,390 per randomized participant against $207 for mailings [8]. A hoarding disorder trial found that people recruited through advertising such as flyers were as likely to be eligible as other recruits but less likely to complete the study [9]. In an irritable bowel syndrome trial, flyers produced the most calls (745) and enrollments (120), yet about 16% of flyer callers enrolled against about 23% of physician-referral callers, and the paper still ranked flyers second most efficient overall [10]. Together these say flyers can bring call volume but convert and retain less well, and at $5,390 per randomized participant in the breast cancer trial they were an expensive lead channel, so their role is local reach beside better-targeted routes.

Venues should follow the population the study needs:

• Specialist clinic waiting rooms, ideally with a clinician who mentions the study, since physician referral converted better than flyers in the irritable bowel syndrome trial [10].
• Patient-group newsletters and events, because advocacy groups recruited the largest proportion of randomized participants in the hoarding disorder trial [9].
• Community centers, for studies that recruit within a neighborhood or community.
• Campus buildings, for studies of students.

Every placement needs permission from the venue and a flyer version the IRB has approved.

Do Clinical Trial Recruitment Flyers Work on Their Own? What the Evidence Says

Flyers can supply local volume, but the published evidence says they rarely fill a study alone, and the evidence behind any single channel is thinner than recruitment advice suggests. A Cochrane review of 68 studies of recruitment strategies found only three of its 72 comparisons supported by high-certainty evidence, among them a 6% absolute gain from telephone reminders to people who did not answer a postal invitation, while a user-tested information leaflet made little or no difference; its authors describe a literature with "plenty of variety but little depth" [15]. For a buyer, that means no channel is proven everywhere, so each one earns its place by what it produces in your own funnel. The wider benchmark picture is covered in how patients find studies and what moves enrollment.

The channels that run beside a flyer sort by what they add:

• Clinician contact. In the ADAPTABLE trial, 16.8% of people approached in clinic enrolled, against 3.3% of letter recipients and 4.2% of portal and email recipients [11].
• Patient portals and registries. A portal invitation enrolled 41 of 210 eligible patients, while standard referral enrolled none of the 184 it covered [12].
• Electronic outreach. Email and portal messages produced 87.8% of the enrollees at the ADAPTABLE trial's UNC site (509 of 580) despite the lower yield, because of its reach [11].
• Online ads. A meta-analysis found online recruitment faster per active day and cheaper per enrollee (median US $72 against US $199, across 13 studies reporting cost), yet offline methods converted better in 9 of 13 studies, and over whole recruitment periods the speed difference was not significant [13].
• Social media. A scoping review found results mixed: 9 of 28 studies that reported enrollment by method had their highest enrollment from social media [14].

One difference explains the pattern across these channels: clinician and portal contact reaches people already identified as likely to qualify, while flyers and ads reach whoever passes by.

How to Decide Whether Flyers Are Enough

Flyers are enough when a study needs a small number of local participants from a population that passes through places you can post, because a flyer reaches whoever passes by, and in one trial that reach produced the most calls and enrollments [10]. When the people a study needs are not passing a board, a flyer cannot find them, and the three decisions below mark that point.

Score the flyer on eligible first contacts, not total calls

If calls arrive but most fail pre-screening, the problem is wording or placement, so tighten the eligibility bullets and move the flyer closer to the eligible population. Count each response through pre-screen to consent so the scorecard shows eligible contacts per placement.

Pair every flyer with a person or a portal

If the study recruits from a clinic population, have a clinician mention the study or send a portal invitation from the start, because physician-referral callers enrolled at a higher rate than flyer callers [10], clinic approach outperformed letters and electronic messages [11], and portal invitations outperformed standard referral [12]. Reserve flyers for the venues where the eligible population gathers.

Brief a recruitment vendor when targeted flyers and companion channels miss the checkpoint

If enrollment is behind plan at the checkpoint you set before launch, that is the point to brief outside help. Compare the options in the six types of recruitment vendor, and weigh the spend against what recruitment costs per patient and per delay day before you sign.

If you would rather not run that evaluation alone, Refero screens healthcare marketing and patient recruitment agencies against five published criteria and introduces up to three that fit your brief. It is free for buyers, and there is no obligation to hire anyone we introduce. Tell us what you need.

Frequently asked questions

What should be included in a research recruitment poster?

A plain title, the purpose of the study, a summary of eligibility, the visits and time involved, the location, any compensation, a contact route and the investigator and IRB reference [2][4]. FDA's list covers the core items, and institutional IRB guidance adds the rest, such as the investigator's name and the IRB number.

Does a recruitment flyer need IRB approval before it is posted?

Yes. NIH lists flyers and posters among recruitment materials that need IRB review [6], and FDA expects the IRB to examine the final copy of a printed advertisement, including type size and visual effects [2]. Missouri requires that any revision made after approval be resubmitted [4]. Confirm your own IRB's process.

Can a research flyer say how much participants are paid?

Usually it can say that participants will be paid, but it should not emphasize payment or the amount with larger or bold type [2]. Some IRBs allow a dollar figure and others may ask for only a mention of compensation [5]. Check your institution's policy before printing.

Where are good places to post flyers for research studies?

Post where the people the study needs already go, with the venue's permission: specialist clinic waiting rooms, patient-group newsletters and events, community centers or campus buildings. General boards are a weak bet on their own: in one breast cancer trial flyers produced 1 of 161 randomized participants [8], and a hoarding disorder trial found advertising recruits less likely to complete [9]. Pair flyers with online or clinic channels.

How do I recruit people for a research study besides flyers?

Clinician referral, patient-portal invitations and online ads each have trial evidence behind them. Portal invitations enrolled patients in one randomized comparison where standard referral enrolled none [12], and online recruitment cost less per enrollee in a meta-analysis [13]. If those still miss your enrollment checkpoint, bring in a recruitment vendor.

Sources

• Shadbolt C, et al. Analysis of Rates of Completion, Delays, and Participant Recruitment in Randomized Clinical Trials in Surgery. JAMA Network Open, 2023. Link
• US Food and Drug Administration. Recruiting Study Subjects (Information Sheet). Link
• Northwestern University Institutional Review Board. Recruitment Materials Guidelines. Link
• University of Missouri. Research Study Recruitment Materials Guidelines. Link
• University of Utah Institutional Review Board. Compensation of Research Subjects. Link
• National Institutes of Health, Office of IRB Operations. Recruitment. Link
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Plain Language Materials and Resources. Link
• Pinto BM, Dunsiger S. The Many Faces of Recruitment in a Randomized Controlled Trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 2021. Link
• Martin AM, et al. Recruiting under-represented populations into psychiatric research: Results from the help for hoarding study. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 2018. Link
• Chin Feman SP, et al. Effectiveness of Recruitment in Clinical Trials: An Analysis of Methods Used in a Trial for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Patients. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 2008. Link
• Pfaff E, et al. Recruiting for a pragmatic trial using the electronic health record and patient portal: successes and lessons learned. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2019. Link
• Verdini NP, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes as a Recruitment Strategy for Clinical Trial Enrollment. JAMA Oncology, 2024. Link
• Brøgger-Mikkelsen M, et al. Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2020. Link
• Darmawan I, et al. The Role of Social Media in Enhancing Clinical Trial Recruitment: Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2020. Link
• Treweek S, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018. Link
• US Code of Federal Regulations. 45 CFR 164.512(i), Uses and disclosures for research purposes (HIPAA Privacy Rule). Link