Essential Questions for Designing an Effective Feasibility Questionnaire

Understanding the Role of Feasibility Questionnaires

Before selecting sites and investigators, sponsors and CROs must carefully evaluate a site’s ability to successfully execute a clinical trial. A feasibility questionnaire is one of the most important tools for this assessment. These documents collect structured information about a site’s resources, patient pool, regulatory experience, and infrastructure readiness. Regulatory agencies such as the FDA, EMA, and national authorities expect sponsors to document feasibility efforts as part of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) compliance. Without a robust feasibility process, sponsors risk delays, under-enrollment, and inspection findings during trial audits.

Feasibility questionnaires typically cover domains such as:

• Patient recruitment and retention potential
• Principal Investigator (PI) and sub-investigator experience
• Site infrastructure, including equipment and labs
• Previous performance in similar therapeutic areas
• Local regulatory and ethics committee processes

For example, in oncology studies, questionnaires often probe whether the site has access to pathology labs capable of immunohistochemistry testing, or whether genetic testing partnerships exist. In infectious disease studies, questions may focus on availability of biosafety level facilities. Thus, while core domains remain consistent, therapeutic area–specific tailoring is essential.

Critical Patient-Related Questions

Patient recruitment is one of the most common barriers to timely trial completion. Regulators, including the European Medicines Agency (EMA), emphasize that feasibility assessments should be realistic and data-driven. A questionnaire must therefore ask targeted questions about patient populations. Examples include:

Incorporating epidemiological data strengthens these questions. For example, if a site estimates 300 eligible patients annually but national disease burden data suggests fewer than 50 cases in the region, this discrepancy raises concerns about overestimation. Sponsors should cross-check questionnaire responses with external databases such as ClinicalTrials.gov to validate feasibility claims against trial recruitment histories.

Questions on Investigator and Staff Experience

A site’s human resources are equally critical. Regulators often highlight inadequate investigator oversight as a frequent finding in inspections. Questionnaires should evaluate whether the PI and supporting staff have the necessary experience. Key questions include:

• How many clinical trials has the PI conducted in the past five years, and in which therapeutic areas?
• Has the PI received any regulatory inspection findings related to GCP?
• What is the average turnover rate of study coordinators and research nurses?
• What GCP training and certification do staff currently hold?

For example, a PI with ten oncology trials completed but with multiple FDA Form 483 citations may be a higher risk compared to a less experienced PI with a clean regulatory record. Feasibility questionnaires should capture such nuances.

Infrastructure and Technology Questions

Infrastructure capability directly influences trial quality. For complex trials requiring bioanalytical testing, imaging, or cold-chain management, questionnaires must go beyond basic facilities inquiries. Sample questions include:

• Does the site have validated -80°C freezers with continuous temperature monitoring?
• Are backup power systems in place to safeguard sample integrity?
• Is the site equipped with validated software for electronic data capture (EDC)?
• Are laboratory instruments calibrated according to international standards (e.g., ISO 15189)?

Some questionnaires include sample validation parameters such as:

These details help sponsors differentiate between sites that claim readiness and those that are genuinely prepared for trial operations.

Regulatory and Ethics Questions

Finally, feasibility questionnaires must assess local regulatory and ethics environments. Delays in IRB/EC approvals are a common reason for missed trial timelines. Essential questions include:

• What is the average IRB/EC review timeline for clinical trials at your institution?
• Do you have prior experience submitting to regulatory authorities such as FDA, EMA, CDSCO, or PMDA?
• Are there institutional policies restricting enrollment of vulnerable populations?

For example, if a site reports an average of 45 days for ethics approvals, sponsors can plan activation timelines accordingly. Sites with extended timelines (e.g., >90 days) may not be suitable for fast-track studies.

Transition to Next Considerations

The above domains—patient recruitment, investigator experience, infrastructure, and regulatory landscape—form the backbone of feasibility questionnaires. However, sponsors must also evaluate validation of responses, data reliability, and strategies to prevent overpromising. These aspects will be explored in Part 2, with focus on case studies, pitfalls, and best practices for robust feasibility planning.

Validating Feasibility Questionnaire Responses

Feasibility questionnaires are only useful if responses are accurate. Regulators and sponsors increasingly emphasize data verification as part of trial oversight. Sponsors must apply validation strategies to ensure that sites are not inflating capabilities or patient pools to secure trial participation.

One approach is to cross-verify patient pool estimates with hospital records, referral databases, or national disease registries. For example, if a site reports 500 annual cases of Type 2 diabetes, but regional public health data suggests only 300 cases, the sponsor should investigate. Similarly, sponsors should request anonymized patient counts or ICD-10 code reports to substantiate claims.

Case Study: Inflated Patient Recruitment Claims

A multinational sponsor faced delays in an oncology trial when three sites overestimated recruitment potential. While questionnaires projected 50 patients per site annually, actual enrollment was less than 10. Upon review, it was found that sites included patients outside inclusion criteria. This case underscores the importance of rigorous validation, including review of electronic health records (EHRs) and prior recruitment histories from registries such as ISRCTN Registry.

Common Pitfalls in Questionnaire Design

Despite best intentions, poorly designed questionnaires often result in incomplete or misleading data. Common pitfalls include:

• Overly generic questions that do not capture therapeutic-specific nuances
• Yes/No questions without quantitative context (e.g., “Do you have lab facilities?” instead of “How many calibrated centrifuges are available?”)
• Failure to include data validation fields or request supporting documentation
• Excessive questionnaire length leading to incomplete responses

To avoid these issues, sponsors should pilot-test questionnaires with selected sites and adjust based on feedback. Regulatory authorities also recommend focusing on essential questions that directly impact trial feasibility, rather than exhaustive lists that burden sites unnecessarily.

Best Practices for Effective Questionnaires

Effective feasibility questionnaires balance comprehensiveness with clarity. Best practices include:

• Tailoring questionnaires by therapeutic area (oncology, cardiology, infectious disease)
• Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions
• Integrating electronic platforms to streamline completion and analysis
• Embedding mandatory data validation checks (e.g., requiring supporting documentation uploads)

Some sponsors now deploy digital feasibility tools integrated with Clinical Trial Management Systems (CTMS). These allow automated scoring, comparison across sites, and identification of red flags such as inconsistent patient data. For example, an AI-enabled feasibility tool might score sites based on patient pool adequacy, infrastructure readiness, and regulatory history, generating a composite feasibility index for decision-making.

Sample Feasibility Scoring Framework

This weighted approach ensures objective decision-making while allowing customization for specific trial needs. For instance, in rare disease studies with small populations, patient recruitment weight might increase to 60%.

Conclusion

Feasibility questionnaires are a cornerstone of site selection and clinical trial planning. By including targeted questions on patients, investigators, infrastructure, and regulatory environment—and by validating responses through data cross-checks—sponsors can mitigate risks of underperformance and regulatory non-compliance. Effective design not only accelerates trial start-up but also strengthens inspection readiness by demonstrating a structured feasibility process.

Smart Site Selection Strategies for Rare Disease Clinical Trials

Why Site Selection Matters More in Rare Disease Trials

Site selection is a critical determinant of success in any clinical trial, but its importance multiplies in rare disease studies. With limited eligible patient populations and a scarcity of experienced investigators, each site must be carefully chosen to balance enrollment potential, data quality, and operational efficiency.

Unlike large-scale trials for common conditions, rare disease trials often cannot afford the luxury of underperforming sites. A single patient enrolled or missed could significantly impact timelines, cost, and regulatory submission. Therefore, optimizing site selection is both a strategic and operational imperative in orphan drug development.

Core Criteria for Selecting Sites in Rare Disease Trials

When evaluating potential sites for rare disease research, sponsors and CROs must go beyond basic infrastructure checks. Key criteria include:

• Access to patients: Does the site have a history of treating the target rare condition or access to relevant patient registries?
• Investigator expertise: Are investigators trained in the nuances of the disease, its progression, and endpoints?
• Past performance: Has the site delivered strong enrollment and data quality in similar or related studies?
• Operational readiness: Can the site manage protocol complexity, long-term follow-up, and uncommon assessments?
• Regulatory experience: Does the site understand GCP, IRB processes, and rare disease-specific documentation?

Incorporating a weighted scorecard approach can help rank candidate sites using both quantitative and qualitative inputs.

Leveraging Centers of Excellence and Referral Networks

Many countries have established rare disease centers of excellence—clinics or hospitals that serve as regional or national referral hubs. These sites often have:

• Dedicated staff familiar with the rare condition
• Patient databases or registries linked to diagnosis codes
• On-site diagnostic capabilities like genetic testing or biomarkers
• Established relationships with advocacy groups or foundations

Examples include the EU Clinical Trials Register which lists trials conducted at specialized European reference networks (ERNs). Collaborating with such centers can accelerate enrollment and improve protocol adherence.

Geographic Strategy: Balancing Access and Feasibility

Country and region selection can make or break a rare disease trial. Important considerations include:

• Prevalence hotspots: Some rare conditions are more common in certain ethnic groups or geographic clusters.
• Regulatory timelines: Select regions with streamlined approvals for orphan drug trials.
• Health system integration: Favor countries with centralized health systems that track rare disease diagnoses.
• Language and culture: Ensure patient materials and consent forms are locally appropriate and understandable.

A hybrid approach—combining 2–3 high-enrolling countries with smaller niche sites—often delivers the best risk-adjusted outcome.

Feasibility Assessments Tailored to Rare Diseases

Traditional feasibility questionnaires often fall short in rare disease trials. Instead, consider using customized templates that assess:

• How many patients with the condition were treated in the last 12 months
• Whether the site participates in relevant registries or consortia
• Previous experience with long-term follow-up or post-marketing trials
• Availability of storage for rare biospecimens or specialized equipment

Direct feasibility interviews or virtual site visits can add qualitative depth, especially for new or non-traditional sites.

Case Study: Site Selection for an Ultra-Rare Neuromuscular Disease

A biotech company planning a Phase II trial in a neuromuscular disorder affecting fewer than 5,000 patients globally faced significant challenges. The team:

• Mapped global prevalence using registry and insurance claims data
• Identified 18 potential sites across 5 countries
• Prioritized sites with high-quality referrals from genetic counselors
• Used a 30-point feasibility scorecard including investigator interest and patient travel support

Outcome: The study exceeded its enrollment goal 2 months ahead of schedule with only 12 activated sites—saving nearly $1M in operational costs.

Mitigating Risk with Backup and Satellite Sites

Given the high stakes, sponsors should always identify backup sites early in the planning process. In parallel, consider:

• Satellite clinics: Smaller locations tied to a central site but capable of performing limited procedures
• Mobile visits: For home-based follow-ups or specialized assessments like pulmonary function or neurological exams
• Remote data capture: ePROs and decentralized tools to widen geographic reach

This flexibility helps overcome unexpected hurdles like delayed IRB approvals, investigator turnover, or site dropouts.

Conclusion: Strategic Site Selection is Central to Rare Disease Trial Success

In rare disease clinical trials, every site counts. A few well-chosen, well-supported sites with access to the right patients and expertise can be more valuable than dozens of less-prepared locations. Strategic site selection—grounded in patient access, operational readiness, and local expertise—reduces risk, accelerates timelines, and ensures high-quality data.

As rare disease research continues to evolve, sponsors who invest in smarter site strategies will not only improve trial efficiency but also build lasting relationships with the clinical centers and communities that drive orphan drug development forward.