Manual or Automatic? Choosing the Right Participant Approval Flow in Decentralized Trials

Recruitment is one of the hardest parts of any study. Screening participants accurately, fairly, and quickly makes the difference between a trial that launches smoothly and one that struggles from the start.

That’s why we built flexibility into Alethios: researchers can choose between manual participant approval or automatic approval depending on the needs of their study. Both approaches have real advantages — the key is knowing when to use which.

‍

When Manual Approval Is Essential

Manual approval gives researchers the chance to review every screening response before a participant is allowed into the study. It’s most useful when:

• Responses require interpretation. Screening isn’t always a simple yes/no. Some questions call for judgment or context, which only a researcher can provide.
  
  
• Uploads or media need to be verified. If a participant must submit a document, PDF, photo, or video, manual review ensures accuracy and authenticity.
  
  
• Stratified or hyper-targeted recruitment is in play. Sometimes you need to stagger entry into a study — admitting only a certain number of participants from a specific demographic or disease group at a time.
  
  
• Safety and compliance demand it. For studies involving sensitive populations or interventions, manual review adds an extra layer of oversight.
  
  

In these cases, manual approval ensures data quality, protects participant safety, and gives researchers confidence that each individual truly meets inclusion criteria.

‍

When Automatic Approval Works Best

On the other hand, automatic approval can streamline the onboarding process and reduce friction for participants. It’s ideal when:

• Self-reported data is sufficient. For many observational and consumer health studies, straightforward screening questions can determine eligibility without further review.
  
  
• Speed is a priority. Participants can be notified instantly whether they qualify, reducing drop-off and improving recruitment timelines.
  
  
• Data quality is already safeguarded. Alethios’ screening system prevents duplicates, detects inconsistencies, and minimizes the risk of “gaming” the questionnaire.
  
  

In these cases, automatic approval not only saves researcher time but also improves the participant experience — moving them quickly from screening into onboarding without delays.

‍

The Best of Both Worlds

Because studies vary, we don’t believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. Alethios lets you toggle between manual and automatic approval, or even mix them: using automatic approval for most participants, while routing complex or high-risk cases for manual review.

The result is flexibility: researchers stay in control of their study design, while participants get a clear, reliable, and timely experience.

‍

Final Take

Approval workflows might sound like a small detail, but in practice, they shape the entire recruitment experience.

Manual approval ensures rigor when nuance or oversight is required. Automatic approval makes participation smoother and faster when self-reported data is enough. Together, they give researchers the tools to balance speed, safety, and specificity — without compromise.

That’s the kind of flexibility decentralized trials demand. And it’s exactly what Alethios was built to deliver.

‍