Readiness breaks differently depending on the disease.
Common diseases erode silently.Specialty diseases overwhelm structurally.Rare diseases leave no margin for error. CORE and PRISM adapt to each.
Same readiness thesis. Three friction landscapes.
Every disease creates a distinct readiness profile. The behavioral, structural, and cognitive friction that drives dropout differs by disease complexity. CORE and PRISM do not apply a uniform retention model. They map readiness to the specific friction landscape of each disease tier.
A 52-week diabetes trial loses patients to silent motivational decay. A 24-cycle oncology protocol loses patients to expectation-burden mismatch. A 40-patient rare disease study loses every patient to a distinct combination of geographic, caregiver, and community-level friction. Choose the tier that matches your trial.
Choose your disease tier.
Common Diseases
Diabetes. Cardiovascular. Respiratory. NASH. Large eligible populations, long timelines, asymptomatic patients. The challenge is sustaining motivation, not finding patients.
Explore Common Diseases →Specialty Diseases
Oncology. Dermatology. Ophthalmology. Neurology. Motivated patients facing complex protocols, frequent visits, side effect burden, and caregiver coordination. The challenge is aligning expectations with reality.
Explore Specialty Diseases →Rare Diseases
Ultra-small populations. Diagnostic odyssey fatigue. Geographic dispersion. Total caregiver dependency. No rescue recruitment. Every patient is structurally irreplaceable.
Explore Rare Diseases →How readiness friction differs by tier.
| Dimension | Common | Specialty | Rare |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary friction type | Motivational erosion | Cognitive and logistical overload | Structural fragility across all dimensions |
| Population size | Large (thousands eligible) | Moderate (hundreds eligible) | Tiny (30 to 80 globally in many cases) |
| Where dropout concentrates | Mid-study | Early participation | Any stage, no safe window |
| Caregiver role | Minimal, patient-led | Significant, hidden burden variable | Co-participant, structurally required |
| Tolerance for patient loss | Moderate: volume compensates to a degree | Low: each patient is costly to replace | Zero: every patient is irreplaceable |
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does disease complexity matter for patient readiness?
Disease complexity determines where readiness friction concentrates, how dropout manifests, and what interventions can prevent it. A 52-week diabetes trial, a 24-cycle oncology protocol, and a 40-patient rare disease study generate dropout through fundamentally different mechanisms.
How do CORE and PRISM adapt to different disease tiers?
CORE adapts its content library to the comprehension, caregiver, and motivation requirements of each disease tier. PRISM adapts its readiness scoring, behavioral interventions, and retention monitoring to the friction profile of each tier.
What if my trial spans multiple disease tiers?
Many programs do. Each indication gets its own readiness profile and friction map. CORE and PRISM are configured per study, so a portfolio spanning common, specialty, and rare diseases gets tier-appropriate governance in each protocol.
Send us your protocol and site list.
In two days, you get three execution diagnostics on your program.
Trial Readiness Index
How likely each eligible patient cluster is to activate, persist, and complete, before any intervention.
Readiness Friction Map
The barriers most likely to suppress activation, enrollment, and completion in each cluster, and how to mitigate them.
Readiness
Blueprint
Which clusters to target, which barriers to address, which interventions to deploy, and what completion lift to expect.