Patient involvement for clinical trials, medicines, devices, digital health and NHS services
If it's built for patients, patients should shape it.
We put your clinical trial plan, product or materials in front of people living with the condition, recruited to match who actually has it by age, sex, ethnicity and background, and we publish how close we are. You get back a report showing what they said, what you changed, and what you didn't.
Most research still can't show what patients changed.
Patient and public involvement (PPI) groups do good work with very little. The problem is scale: a group of ten can't tell you how a thousand people with the condition would read your information sheet, and it can't be broken down by age, ethnicity or deprivation to show who said what.
And a lot of research still goes ahead without any involvement at all. When the Health Research Authority checked 398 applications given a favourable ethics opinion in 2023, about a quarter hadn't involved the public at all. Clinical trials were less likely to have involved people than other research, and commercial research less likely than non-commercial. Many of the applications that did involve people didn't explain how it made the research more relevant to the people taking part.
The people most often left out are the people the product or clinical trial is for.
About 1 in 4 research applications approved in 2023 hadn't involved the public at all.
Source: Health Research Authority, Public involvement in health and social care research in the UK: report 2023.
Matched to the condition, not to whoever signed up.
Most panels are whoever happened to join. Ours is recruited so that, for each condition, the people you hear from reflect the people who actually have it, and we publish how close we are, condition by condition.
Type 2 diabetes is the clearest example. It's two to four times more likely in people of South Asian, African-Caribbean and Black African descent. A panel that looks like the general public is wrong before the first question is asked. Of our 1,900 members with type 2 diabetes, 16% are Asian and 5% are Black, against 9% and 4% of the population of England and Wales. Where we're short of the condition, the panel page says so.
Share of people, England and Wales compared with our type 2 diabetes members
Sources: Diabetes UK, type 2 diabetes risk factors; ONS, Census 2021, ethnic groups in England and Wales; Unwritten Health panel count, September 2026.
Before the design is fixed, not after.
Registries like NIHR's Be Part of Research help you find participants once your clinical trial is approved. They're made up of whoever chooses to sign up.
We come earlier, and we're built differently. Our panel is matched to the people who have the condition, and it tells you what they think, not just whether they're interested. We help you shape the plan, the information sheet and the invitation with the people they're for, so the strategy is stronger before anyone is asked to take part.
Three things you get
Speed.
Answers from the panel come back in hours for simple questions and days for complex ones.
The right people.
13,050 UK members (as of October 2026), every one active in the last three months, profiled on their condition, their experience of it, and factors including ethnicity, sex, age, income, deprivation and where they live. Members join through Equity Engine (opens in a new tab), our community platform, and are paid for their time from their first survey. We count someone as active when they've answered something in the last three months, not when they signed up.
Proof.
A report your committee, regulator, board or buyer can read. It shows who took part, broken down by condition, age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and where they live, never by name or anything that could identify them. Then what they raised, what you changed, what you didn't and why.
Involving people who have the condition makes a measurable difference.
A review of 26 studies found that involving patients was linked to better odds of enrolling participants in clinical trials: an odds ratio of 1.16 overall. In the small group of studies where the people involved had the condition being studied, the figure was 3.14, though with so few studies the range around it is wide.
We don't claim involvement will do that for your clinical trial. We make sure the people involved are the right ones, and we show you exactly who they were.
Odds of enrolling participants, compared with no involvement.
The dashed line marks no difference. Lines show 95% confidence intervals: 1.01 to 1.34, and 1.89 to 5.22.
Source: Crocker et al., BMJ, 2018. The pooled effect across all involvement was 1.16; the 3.14 figure is a subgroup of a few studies with lived experience, and its confidence interval is wide.
What we work on
- Patient insight for clinical trial design and product development
- Clinical trial plans and participant materials
- Patient recruitment strategy and site selection
- Gaps in what you know about living with a condition
- Apps, portals and digital tools
- Devices and instructions for use
- Websites and patient communications
- Patient support programmes
A Phase II clinical trial needed people of African descent with a specific biomarker. The contract research company forecast a year to find them.
In March 2026, our panel helped shape the recruitment strategy, using our heat maps of where these people live, and reworked the recruitment materials with the sponsor. The clinical trial went on to enrol 560 people in twelve weeks, 112% of target.
That outcome is the sponsor's, and many things went into it. We don't claim our involvement caused it, and we don't promise it for anyone else. The sponsor can't be named.
Start with a free panel check.
Tell us who your clinical trial or product is for. We'll tell you the same day how many people like that we hold and how they break down. No sales call needed.