Most patient education begins with a deliverable. CORE begins with the failure it must prevent.We expose where protocol complexity becomes confusion, burden, and dropout risk.Then we engineer the experience patients and caregivers need to understand, decide, and complete.
CORE follows three phases: Data, Design, Produce. Each answers a specific question. Each produces a specific output for the next. Nothing created from assumption. Nothing built without knowing exactly what it must accomplish. This is how CORE delivers in weeks, not months, with materials that outperform anything built from a creative brief.
Every CORE engagement maps friction between protocol and patient. Not what the protocol says, but what patients must understand, believe, and do to participate. This is structured extraction of gaps between trial design and patient reality, not market research.
The data phase identifies patient and caregiver information gaps, cognitive and emotional barriers, stakeholder misalignment, site friction from unclear education, and where each barrier emerges in the lifecycle.
The output is an operational map: what must be explained, to whom, in sequence, at what lifecycle moment. This drives everything downstream. If the data phase is wrong, everything fails. CORE doesn't skip it, abbreviate it, or replace it with assumptions.
CORE doesn't jump from insight to assets. It designs the experience patients must move through to become informed and confident. Most organizations skip this entirely. That's why most patient education fails. Good content in the wrong order at the wrong time doesn't prepare anyone.
The design phase determines what patients understand first, maps their actual decisions (not protocol assumptions), identifies where confusion and drop-off happen, and structures information so it builds confidence progressively instead of dumping complexity at consent.
Education is sequenced, not distributed. It builds confidence, not awareness. The output is a structured experience independent of format. The design tells you what each asset must accomplish before deciding its form.
CORE produces assets only after data mapping and experience architecture are complete. Every asset has a defined role. It exists because the experience design identified a specific moment where a specific understanding must build, not to fill a deliverable list.
Assets play a specific role in the experience. Each piece reinforces understanding, not repetition. Formats chosen by context and cognitive load, not preference or tradition. Video when motion and narration work better than text. Print when patients need something to return to. Web when information must work across devices and languages.
All assets are protocol-derived, behaviorally structured, IRB-ready, amendment-resilient, consistent across sites, multilingual by design, delivered in weeks. The output is coordinated materials that create the specified experience, not a content library.
This three-phase process is what separates CORE from every agency, CRO, and internal team that builds patient materials. They start with a creative brief. CORE starts with the protocol, the patient, and the lifecycle. The process is the product.
CORE maps every lifecycle stage to the specific education, expectation-setting, and decision support patients need to participate successfully. It's system architecture, not a content menu. Each stage addresses a specific readiness barrier at the moment it matters most.
Before trial entry, patients form beliefs about participation. Those beliefs come from search results, social media, word of mouth, advocacy communities, and assumptions. Wrong beliefs create downstream deficits. CORE intervenes with trial overviews, condition education, and referral materials that set accurate expectations before the first conversation.
This is comprehension seeding, not awareness marketing. The goal isn't reach. It's ensuring arriving patients have realistic understanding of what participation involves.
Most organizations collapse this into a single brochure or consent visit conversation. CORE treats it as structured progression. Patients learn what the trial involves, day-to-day participation, burden, caregiver roles, and tradeoffs. Information sequenced so each concept builds on the last, not overwhelming at once.
Education here translates protocol into patient's actual life. Visit schedules become time commitments. Procedures become physical experiences. Side effects become planning questions.
By consent, CORE has built understanding most organizations try to create in that single visit. Pre-consent education clarifies eligibility in patient terms, explains what screening involves, addresses fears and misconceptions specific to the therapeutic area and protocol.
Result: consent conversations become shorter, more productive, more meaningful. Sites confirm what patients already know instead of starting from scratch. Screen failure rates drop because screening patients have already self-assessed against realistic expectations.
Most education ends at enrollment. CORE continues. Participation delivers ongoing education for upcoming visits, procedural changes, side effect management, adherence support, psychological burden. This is where expectation alignment pays its largest dividend.
Patients knowing what to expect at Visit 4 don't panic when it's harder. Patients understanding Week 8 fatigue is normal don't interpret it as a withdrawal signal. CORE maintains readiness instead of assuming it persists alone.
The final stage is the most neglected. Trial completers need clarity on what's next: transition to standard of care, trial results, follow-up obligations, emotional closure. Caregivers need guidance too.
CORE treats completion as designed experience, not just endpoint. Patients get guidance on expectations after their last visit, interpreting their experience, ongoing involvement. This matters for patient wellbeing, data quality, and retaining participants for future trials.
CORE materials prepare patients, not just inform them. That distinction drives six design principles governing every asset. These are engineering constraints, not values. Every deliverable is tested against them.
Patients don't need more information. They need information structured around their actual decisions. CORE organizes by decision point, not protocol section. Every asset helps answer a specific question: "Can I do this?" "What will this feel like?" "What happens if I stop?"
Complex understanding can't be compressed into one document or conversation. CORE sequences information across time so each concept builds on the last. Trial overview before visit schedule. Visit schedule before side effects. Sequencing reduces cognitive overload and builds durable comprehension.
CORE prepares patients to decide, not persuade them to participate. Expectations framed early. Tradeoffs explicit. Burden translated to real-life terms. Patients consenting after CORE education understand what they're agreeing to, not because they were convinced.
Protocols are written for regulators. Patients experience them as daily disruptions. CORE translates every requirement into a feasibility question: How much time? How many trips? What side effects? What does my caregiver do? Feasibility closes the gap between protocol design and patient reality.
Caregivers determine feasibility more than patients determine eligibility. CORE includes caregivers in every stage, not as brochure recipients but as decision-making partners needing their own understanding of burden, role, expectation. Caregiver readiness is patient readiness.
Protocols change. Monolithic education breaks when they do. CORE materials are modular so amendments update targeted components without resetting the experience. Understanding doesn't restart when protocols change. The experience adapts. The investment compounds.
Protocol amendments are the most common reason traditional patient education fails mid-study. Generic materials get rebuilt. Timelines reset. Sites use outdated content while new materials develop. CORE is different. Modular, protocol-derived materials update targeted components without disrupting the broader experience.
In most trials, caregivers determine feasibility. They manage schedules, transportation, medication, support, decisions. Yet most education treats them as secondary content recipients. CORE recognizes caregiver readiness and patient readiness are inseparable and integrates caregiver education into every stage.
CORE defines what the caregiver's role actually involves for this trial. Not generic "support." A concrete map of time commitment, decision points, physical presence, emotional labor. Caregivers know what they're agreeing to before the patient consents.
Protocol burden falls on caregivers differently. CORE translates requirements into caregiver-specific terms: schedule disruption, work impact, travel, cognitive load of managing someone else's participation alongside their own.
Caregivers participate in enrollment, continuation, and withdrawal decisions. CORE provides decision-support designed for the caregiver's perspective: not repackaged clinical info, but feasibility-focused tools helping caregivers assess whether sustained participation is realistic.
Every trial is different. The process is consistent. Here's what a standard CORE engagement looks like from kickoff to delivery. Timelines vary by complexity, area, and scope. The structure holds.
CORE team receives protocols, investigator brochures, existing materials. Data phase begins: mapping trial lifecycle, identifying patient and caregiver friction, documenting site education burden.
Protocol friction map delivered. Gaps between protocol design and patient reality identified and prioritized. Stakeholder alignment: sponsor, medical affairs, clinical ops agree on education scope, lifecycle coverage, audience priorities.
Experience design built: sequencing framework, decision-point mapping, comprehension milestones, caregiver touchpoints. This blueprint determines what every asset must accomplish. Reviewed and approved before production begins.
Protocol-derived, behaviorally structured assets produced against the architecture. Each asset built for its lifecycle role. Multilingual versions initiated in parallel. IRB-readiness built in, not bolted on.
Sponsor review of final assets. IRB submission packages prepared. Site materials finalized. Digital delivery configured. Print production initiated. Training materials delivered alongside patient-facing content.
CORE materials remain active and amendment-resilient. Protocol changes trigger targeted updates in days. Trials expanding to new indications, populations, geographies scale without rebuilding.
A standard CORE engagement delivers in 6 to 8 weeks from kickoff, depending on protocol complexity, therapeutic area, and scope. The structured three-phase process eliminates iterative review cycles that extend traditional timelines.
CORE begins with protocol documents, investigator brochures, consent forms, and any existing patient-facing materials. The data phase extracts what matters from these sources. No additional market research or patient panels are required.
Only affected components are revised. Unaffected materials remain in service. Turnaround is days, not weeks. Patient understanding built in earlier stages is preserved rather than reset.
Yes. Mid-study deployments focus on the lifecycle stages where gaps are most acute: participation-stage materials for retention problems, or enrollment-stage materials for high screen failure.
Multilingual production runs in parallel with English, supporting 72 languages with cultural adaptation, not just translation. Pediatric trials get separate age-tailored tracks for children and caregivers, both protocol-derived.
Comprehension at each lifecycle stage, expectation alignment at consent, site education burden reduction, and post-enrollment retention patterns. When deployed alongside PRISM, readiness metrics are tracked continuously through live indices.
Proprietary constructs defined by Jumo Health. Each one is a measurable operational concept, not a marketing term. View all definitions →
In two days, you get three execution diagnostics on your program.
How likely each eligible patient cluster is to activate, persist, and complete, before any intervention.
The barriers most likely to suppress activation, enrollment, and completion in each cluster, and how to mitigate them.
Which clusters to target, which barriers to address, which interventions to deploy, and what completion lift to expect.