Ep 2.21: Jill Fikowski on on Substance Use, Stigma, and the Research That Actually Changed Policy (1/3)

Ep 2.23: Jill Fikowski on Why Participants Drop Out and What to Do About It (3/3)

In the final episode of our three-part series with Jill Fikowski, founder and CEO of Changemark Research + Evaluation, we get into one of the most persistent problems in clinical research: retention. Jill unpacks why participants drop out and it's rarely what sponsors assume.  From there, we get into the pressure that lands on research coordinators when enrollment is behind, the practices that pressure produces. We also look at what happens after the last visit particularly in psychedelic trials and whether researchers have a responsibility that doesn't end when the database closes. Retention problems, Jill argues, are almost always inception problems. And solving them starts with a question most teams never ask. Part 3 of 3.

Ep 2.22: Jill Fikowski on Designing Trials That Communities Actually Want to Join (2/3)

In Part 2 of our conversation with Jill Fikowski, founder and CEO of Changemark Research + Evaluation, we get into what good community engagement actually looks like in practice not as a checkbox, but as a core design principle. Jill opens with a clear answer to what good looks like: involve community from the very beginning and not just at the consent stage, not just in an advisory board email, but in protocol design, recruitment strategy, and how findings are shared. Jill walks us through a Quebec youth cannabis and psychosis study that surpassed both its enrollment and retention targets simply by asking participants what they needed before the protocol was finalised.  We also get into the tension between industry-sponsored research and genuine community care.   Part 2 or 3

Ep 2.21: Jill Fikowski on on Substance Use, Stigma, and the Research That Actually Changed Policy (1/3)

Jill Fikowski, founder and CEO of Changemark Research + Evaluation, brings 25+ years of lived and professional experience in substance use and mental health research. In this episode we cover her work on the SALOME trial, one of the rare studies that directly changed policy. But it wasn't just the science. It was how they centered participants from the beginning. We also explore: 1. How to design community engagement and knowledge translation into your trial from day one 2. The gap between saying participants matter and actually building research around their humanity 3. What happens when you ask participants at the end: "What could we have done better?" 4. The difference between checking the box on community input and genuinely centering stakeholder voices She challenges us to confront how our biases shape every decision: who we enroll, what data we collect, what we do with findings, and whether we ever ask participants what they actually needed.  Part 1 of 3.

ICT Ep 2.20: What Monty Python Can Teach Us About Clinical Trials

Clinical trials don’t become complex overnight, they get there one added process at a time. In this episode, Ted and Liam break down why the industry is so effective at adding new layers, but rarely takes the time to remove what’s no longer needed. Whether it’s protocols, systems, or workflows, each addition is often made with good intent, but the cumulative effect can be significant. They explore how this impacts sites in particular, increasing workload, creating friction, and ultimately making studies harder to execute. The discussion also highlights how relying on historical processes and “what’s worked before” can prevent teams from adapting to today’s reality. Most importantly, they challenge listeners to rethink how processes are designed, not just by optimising what exists, but by asking whether it should exist at all. A practical and thought-provoking conversation on reducing complexity and improving trial execution.

ICT Ep 2.19: Everyone Has a Plan Until the Trial Starts

A 5 AM wake-up call. A perfectly planned setup. And a moment that never delivered. In this episode, Liam and Ted use a story about a missed “blood moon” to explore a deeper truth in clinical trials: expectations don’t always match reality. They discuss how similar frustrations show up at clinical trial sites, where small issues stack up and slowly erode motivation. They break down how friction at the site level, long trainings, broken systems, and unclear processes, gradually drains momentum.  From pre-mortems to escalation paths, this conversation focuses on how to prepare for what will go wrong, even before it does.