Patient Recruitment Q&A With Stefanie Hunter

Stefanie Hunter, VP, Patient Strategy, has brought great energy (and wit) to Tekton. More importantly, she's brought a lot of care for the people considering our studies. All of that comes through in her answers below as she reminds us what's at the heart of participation.

What did your years at the American Cancer Society teach you about communicating with patients?

It taught me that nobody has ever said, "You know what would make this easier? A few more acronyms and a 20-page packet!" Patients want to know: What does this mean for me? Will you listen? Can I trust you?

It also reinforced that people are processing a lot. You may be explaining a research opportunity, but they're thinking, "Am I going to be okay? Can I miss work? Who's picking up my kids?" We have to make room for those questions.

For research sites, that means listening before launching into study details, and being honest about what participation involves. Be warm. Be clear. And please, don't make someone feel like they need an MD to ask a question! We live and breathe research, so it's easy to forget how unfamiliar it can feel. Our enrollment goal is not their reason for participating. We have to understand what matters to them and earn trust before we ask for their time.

You've been in patient recruitment for about a decade. What's the biggest change you've seen?

I'm getting dangerously close to my "back in my day, we walked to school uphill both ways in the snow" era of recruitment, but over the past decade, the terrain really has changed.

Recruitment now takes a deeper understanding of the whole patient. Their treatment history, their everyday life. Tools have gotten smarter and faster, but human conversation has become even more important.

It's no longer just, "Do you have this condition? Okay, you fit this study." It's now, "What medications have you tried? For how long? Why did you stop and what are you taking now?"

Don't get me wrong, it's a great sign of progress in research, and new treatments are wonderful for patients. But tighter inclusion and exclusion criteria mean someone can be interested, motivated, have the diagnosis, and still not qualify.

On the bright side, we've made great progress on some physical barriers to participation. Services like Uber Health make transportation easier to coordinate, and they're generally supported by our Sponsors. I don't have to keep a copy of bus routes on my desk anymore. So nobody needs to walk uphill both ways to our site (unless they want to). But getting them there and finding a study they qualify for are two very different challenges.

On the flip side, what hasn't changed in recruitment?

Participants still need to trust you. And no, there's not an app for that

What's an underrated recruitment approach?

Showing up in the community before you need something. (I clapped in between each of those words.) If people only hear from you when you need participants, you're that friend who only calls when they're moving. Show up and keep showing up. That's why we do what we do, right?

Another personal favorite: ask patients what would make participation doable, and then actually use the answer. Sometimes you don't need a bigger advertising budget. You might just need later appointment options.

Are you and your team using AI day to day in recruitment? Or is it still too unpredictable?

Yes, we're using it, and I see real value in helping with outreach, organizing information, and cutting down admin so our team has more time for patients. But to be clear, it's part of the toolkit and not the entire toolbox. It can save time and support our teams, but it doesn't replace good judgment, clear processes, or human connection.

My challenge to everyone is to be thoughtful about what you're asking AI to do, what information you're giving it, and who's checking its work. Build in that oversight from the beginning. If your process is messy, AI just helps you make a mess faster.

What question should research teams and Sponsors pay more attention to?

"What happens when the study ends?"

We're focused on getting people enrolled, but they're thinking about what comes next. If the treatment helps, can they keep getting it? Who handles care afterward? "Thanks, we've got your data!" cannot be the energy we leave them with.

I've worked with patients in cancer and neurology trials who didn't join for access to an open-label extension, or because they expected a cure in their lifetime. They may not always have questions for us, but I always walk away, one, honored and privileged to connect with these people, and two, wishing we could give them better information on what they've contributed.

A better way to say, "Thank you, you made a difference. Thank you for helping find a way for others to celebrate more birthdays."