Research with clinicians who actually practise. We find doctors, nurses, pharmacists and specialists, check that they are working now in the setting your brief needs, and run the sessions. Built for health app, digital health and medtech teams who need real clinical input before they build or launch.
Book a free 30-min callScoped and quoted per project, with participant incentives shown separately.
Most healthcare research that disappoints did not fail in the discussion guide. It failed because the wrong people answered, and nothing in the output shows it.
The job title matched the screener. The caseload, the setting and the decisions this person actually makes did not.
The listing checks out. The person last saw a patient in 2022 and is answering workflow questions from memory.
The quota filled quickly because it filled from the easiest place to reach, not from the market the report claims to describe.
None of this shows up in the output. The transcripts read fine, the charts are clean, and the error only surfaces much later when the findings will not reconcile with what clinicians do. So we treat verification as the deliverable rather than a step before it, and we tell you who we screened out and why, not just who we found.
Two steps, and the second is the one most suppliers skip.
The credential is checked against their LinkedIn profile and a professional listing for the market they work in. Then we confirm current practice: working clinically now, at the caseload and in the setting your brief requires.
The first minutes re-screen on things a non-practitioner cannot answer fluently: caseload, who refers them, what the current protocol says, what they do when it does not fit. Anyone who cannot hold that conversation is replaced rather than counted.
Where honest recruitment to your criteria would take six weeks, we say six weeks. Quietly widening the screener to hit the quota on time is the most common way a study ends up measuring the wrong population.
Concrete briefs, roughly in the order they arrive. Each one names who has to be in the room, because that is what decides whether it is feasible and what it costs.
Whether a clinician would recommend it, whether they trust what it tells the person using it, and where it would have to sit in a consultation that is already too short. Run as moderated sessions so we can ask why at the moment someone hesitates.
Who we recruit: the clinicians who would be asked about it, screened on the caseload that makes the question real.Whether the professionals who dispense, administer or explain it can work from the pack without checking elsewhere, what they correct at handover, and which step they say people get wrong once they are home.
Who we recruit: pharmacists, nurses and the clinical staff who handle the product in practice.Whether a clinician can use it unaided, in the setting and at the pace it will really be used, and which step of the existing routine it would have to displace to get adopted at all.
Who we recruit: clinicians screened on the procedure or caseload, in the setting you are targeting.Whether clinicians agree with where the flow sends people, what actually turns up at their door as a result, and which outputs they would override. Disagreement between raters is the finding, not noise.
Who we recruit: the clinicians who receive the referrals, in the setting that would absorb them.Which version clinicians find credible enough to act on, and which one quietly reads as marketing. Run as a forced choice between versions, with the reasons counted rather than summarised.
Who we recruit: the prescribing or recommending audience the message is aimed at.What clinicians do when somebody arrives holding the result, whether they trust the number enough to act on it, and what they would need alongside it before it changes anything.
Who we recruit: the clinicians who would receive the result, plus pharmacists where the product is sold over the counter.Whether the problem is sharp enough to act on, whether people understand the concept without you explaining it, and whether the demand behind it is real. Our product validation sequence, run with a clinical audience.
Who we recruit: depends on the question; we work that out with you before quoting.Qualified clinicians rating and correcting model outputs against a rubric you define, in the specialty that matters. Useful when the thing you are shipping was written or scored by a model. AI output evaluation.
Who we recruit: practising clinicians in the relevant specialty, with disagreement between raters reported rather than averaged away.Two more that come up often: sizing something interviews surfaced, across a whole specialty, with a survey; and checking that translated instructions or an interface read correctly to a clinician in market, with localization testing.
We recruit the professional side of healthcare. Buying decisions usually involve more than one of these roles, and they frequently disagree.
By specialty and sub-specialty, screened on caseload or procedure volume, setting, and years since training rather than on job title alone.
Nurses including occupational health, pharmacists, dentists, physiotherapists, dietitians and clinical psychologists, screened on where they work and what they actually handle.
Practice managers, clinic leads and the people running a service day to day, who often decide whether a product is ever actually used.
Medtech, digital health operators, regulatory affairs and the commercial teams around them.
Health research carries rules that general consumer research does not. This is how we work inside them, and where we stop.
If your study needs any of these, it needs a different kind of supplier, and we will say so on the first call rather than after the contract.
We recruit and verify to your screener and send the participants into your own survey or unmoderated test, with the screened-out log included. Interviews we always moderate ourselves, with your team setting the guide and observing, because the live re-screen in the first minutes of each session is part of the verification.
Europe, the UK, North America and Southeast Asia, in the local language by default. The healthcare recruitment page covers the audiences in detail, and the market pages cover what is specific to each country.
Healthcare systems differ more by market than almost any other sector, so a multi-market study is only as good as what you know about the sample in each one. We recruit each market separately and state where the sample sits: public or private, metro or secondary city, hospital or community practice. A study that quietly filled from the easiest market, or from private clinicians in a system that is mostly public, reads as coverage it does not have, and nothing in the output shows it.
Healthcare market research, sometimes called medical market research, is research with the people who prescribe, recommend, buy or deliver a health product. We work on the professional side of that: clinicians and the practice, service and industry teams around them. It differs from general B2B research mainly in how carefully you have to verify people, because a respondent who claims to be a cardiologist and is not will quietly invalidate the study.
Two steps. Before the study, we check the credential against their LinkedIn profile and a professional listing, and confirm the person is practising now, at the volume and in the setting your brief requires, because a consultant who moved into industry three years ago answers workflow questions from memory. Then the session itself re-screens: the first minutes ask things a non-practitioner cannot answer fluently, such as caseload, referral routes and what the current protocol says. Anyone who cannot hold that conversation is replaced rather than counted.
Yes, and specialty is usually the easy part. What actually decides feasibility is caseload or procedure volume, setting, and years since training. Very narrow hospital specialties take longer and cost more, and we will tell you that before you commit rather than quietly widening the screener to hit the quota on time.
Yes. Practice managers, clinic leads, procurement and service managers, and the commercial, regulatory and operations people on the industry side. These are often the roles that decide whether a product is ever actually used, and they are frequently missed in a study that only speaks to clinicians.
Participants give explicit consent before anything is recorded, covering what the session is for, who will see it and how long it is kept. Clinicians are asked about their own practice and decisions, never about named patients, and we do not collect patient-identifiable information. Data is held in the EU under GDPR.
Concept and message testing for health products, usability research on clinician facing software, packaging and instruction testing, workflow interviews before a build, and validation of a product idea with the people who would use it. We do not run clinical investigations, we are not an ethics committee, and we do not take work on marketed pharmaceutical products that carries adverse event reporting obligations.
Three to four weeks from brief to readout for interviews with a reachable clinical audience, longer for narrow sub-specialties, senior hospital roles or several markets at once. Recruitment is almost always the long pole rather than fieldwork, which is why we scope feasibility before quoting rather than after.
Europe, the UK, North America and Southeast Asia, in the local language by default. We recruit in each market separately rather than drawing from one pool, and we tell you where the sample actually sits, because a multi-market study filled from whichever market was easiest reads as coverage it does not have.
Send the audience and the decision behind it. We will come back with whether it is reachable, how long it will take, and a figure.