Clinical Trial Patient Recruitment Landing Pages: What Actually Converts Under IRB – CASRAI

Dictionary · 11 pages
The CASRAI Dictionary
1,858 shared terms across 29 research-administration domains, open under CC-BY 4.0.
CRediT · 11 pages
Contributor Roles Taxonomy
14 contributor roles, standardised as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 and adopted by thousands of journals.
NIKOLAI · 14 pages
NIKOLAI — Nomenclature & Index for Knowledge Ontologies, Lexicons & AI Interoperability
CASRAI's frontier-AI-safety dictionary — 64 elements crosswalked across ten tracks against real lab and regulator documents.
Implement · 35 pages
Implement CRediT & CASRAI standards
Role-by-role guidance for authors, institutions and publishers — plus the APIs, encodings and integration playbooks behind them.
Guides · 23 pages
Guides & topic clusters
Practical how-to guides organised by topic cluster, plus side-by-side standards comparisons.
News · 4 pages
News & perspectives
Essays, working-group updates, and announcements from the CASRAI community.
About · 9 pages
About CASRAI
Mission, governance, and the community that stewards the standards.
Clinical trial patient recruitment fails when the study page is buried on the institutional site. What a dedicated, IRB-approved landing page changes.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated 9 October 2026
Our pick · Verified 18 August 2026
From $29/mo ($22 billed annually)
Unbounce is our pick for study teams because of how it handles the one constraint that breaks every other tool in this category: your page text is regulated. Ad copy, headline, eligibility summary and pre-screener wording all sit inside what most IRBs treat as recruitment material, which means every word on the page was approved as a package. Unbounce lets you build variants of that package and hold them in draft until the amendment clears, then switch them live without a developer or a web-team ticket — so the approved version and the pending version live in the same account and you are never editing the live page under review. The Experiment tier at $149/mo ($112 annual) gives unlimited A/B testing, which is what you need once you have two or three pre-approved variants; Optimize at $249/mo ($187 annual) adds Smart Traffic, which routes visitors to whichever approved variant converts their segment best without you declaring a winner manually. Starter is $29/mo ($22 annual) and Build is $99/mo ($74) — 25% off annual across the board. Verified 18 August 2026. The critical caveat: Unbounce is not a BAA-covered form processor, so the page can qualify interest but any field capturing an actual screening answer must post to a covered system. We cover that split in detail below.
Try Unbounce → Opens on the vendor’s site · CASRAI referral link
Best landing page builders compared → — If your study never collects a screening answer on the page, cheaper builders will do.
Editorial disclosure: Some links on this page are CASRAI referral links. If you sign up through one, CASRAI may earn a commission at no extra cost to you — this helps fund our nonprofit mission. We only recommend tools our editorial team has independently researched. Read our full disclosure policy.

Tip: try code CASRAI at checkout for 15% off, if the offer is currently active for this program — codes vary by vendor and aren’t guaranteed.
Unbounce pricing verified from the vendor pricing page, 18 August 2026
Neither column is “the right answer” on its own. Most compliant setups run both: the institutional page as the canonical, registry-linked record, and the recruitment page as the front door for paid and social traffic.
The page you already have was written to satisfy a different audience. It leads with the protocol title, the sponsor, the registry identifier and a paragraph of inclusion criteria copied out of the protocol document. That is exactly correct as a public record of the study. It is close to useless as the destination for someone who saw a post, wondered whether they qualified, and clicked.
Three structural problems repeat across almost every institutional site we look at. The first is navigation depth: the study sits under a research directory, under a department, under a faculty, and nothing links to it from anywhere a patient would begin. The second is that the page is not editable by the study team — a wording change goes through a web ticket, so the page ossifies at whatever the first draft said. The third is that comms and marketing teams will generally not point paid traffic at an arbitrary institutional subpage, because the page has no campaign tracking, no consistent call to action, and no owner who can be held to a conversion target.
The result is a page that ranks for the study title and nothing else, receives traffic only from people who already knew the trial existed, and offers them a departmental phone number. Meanwhile the recruitment shortfall gets addressed with more flyers, more clinic referrals and more of the coordinator’s time — all of which cost more per enrolled participant than a page that answers the eligibility question in ten seconds.
The reader looking for research participant recruitment in a non-clinical setting — a behavioural study, a cohort survey, a device usability panel — has the identical problem with softer regulatory edges. Everything below applies; you simply have fewer constraints on the wording and a lower bar on what counts as sensitive.
A recruitment landing page has one job: move a self-identified maybe into a qualified conversation with a coordinator. Everything on it should serve that. In practice that means a specific structure, and the order matters more than the design.
Notice how little of this is design work. The constraint is not that you cannot build a good page — it is that the good page says things the current page does not, and every one of those things needs approval before it goes live.
This is what makes clinical trial recruitment different from ordinary marketing, and it is the part most agencies get wrong. Your IRB or research ethics committee reviews recruitment materials, and a landing page plus the adverts that drive traffic to it are recruitment materials. The approval is of a specific wording package — headline, body text, eligibility summary, imagery, the ad copy, and the pre-screener questions. Change any of it materially and you are running unapproved material.
Three categories of language reliably cause problems. Implied benefit: anything suggesting the investigational treatment works, is better than standard care, or that participants will improve. “New treatment” and “breakthrough” fall into this. Undue inducement: leading with the payment figure, or framing reimbursement as earnings, rather than presenting compensation as a factual detail further down. Language that functions as consent: a page cannot enrol anyone, and wording that implies signing up on the page commits someone to the study — or that the pre-screener determines eligibility — blurs a line the consent process exists to keep sharp. The page qualifies interest; a human confirms eligibility and consent happens separately.
The practical consequence for tooling: you cannot iterate on live copy. The instinct from ordinary conversion work — ship a change, watch the numbers, ship another — is not available to you. Which is why the tool choice is not really about editor quality. It is about whether the tool lets you hold multiple approved wordings and switch between them without touching text that is under review.
The temptation is to put the full screening questionnaire on the page so coordinators only speak to qualified people. Resist it. The moment your form collects identified health answers — a diagnosis, a medication, a symptom score attached to a name, email or phone number — you are processing protected health information, and the tool holding that submission needs to be covered by a business associate agreement (or, under UK GDPR, an appropriate processor agreement with special-category data properly grounded). Most default page builders, including Unbounce, are not that tool. Nor are most default form and email services.
There are three workable patterns:
Whichever you choose, the page needs a plain-language privacy statement saying who receives the information, that it is used to contact them about this study, and that submitting it does not enrol them. Sending the resulting details around by email is its own problem — if your workflow involves faxing screening forms between sites, only a HIPAA-covered service with a signed BAA is acceptable, and for Fax.Plus that is the Enterprise tier at $79.99/mo for 4000 pages, the only tier that includes HIPAA and a BAA. Verified 18 August 2026. Consent and re-consent documents have the same requirement; see our notes on electronic signature software and HIPAA-compliant fax for the tiers that actually carry a BAA.
An amendment cycle can outlast the test you wanted to run. Conversion optimisation assumes a fast loop. Yours is measured in the time it takes to get a modification reviewed, which at many institutions means weeks and at some means a full board meeting. If your study recruits for six months, you may realistically get two or three wording changes approved in that window. So do not build a testing programme; build one approved version, and submit two or three variants in the same initial package so they arrive pre-approved. Vary one meaningful thing per variant — the headline framing, the position of the time commitment, whether the pre-screener comes before or after the eligibility list. Then the tool’s job is only to split traffic between things you are already allowed to say.
This is precisely where Unbounce’s Experiment tier earns the difference over the cheaper plans: unlimited A/B at $149/mo ($112 annual) means the number of pre-approved variants you can run is not a billing decision. Optimize at $249/mo ($187 annual) adds Smart Traffic, which allocates visitors to variants automatically — useful when you have three approved wordings and not enough volume to reach significance on any of them before recruitment closes. Verified 18 August 2026.
Any form capturing screening answers needs a BAA-covered tool, which rules out most page builders. This is not a knock on Unbounce specifically — it is true of essentially every mainstream landing page product, and vendors that market a HIPAA posture usually gate it behind an enterprise contract with a very different price. Assume the split: marketing page in the page builder, screening data in a covered system. Anyone selling you a single tool that does both, at self-serve pricing, is either quoting an enterprise agreement or has not thought about it.
Do not buy a landing page builder if any of the following is true. Your enrolment shortfall is a referral problem rather than an awareness problem — if the eligible population only exists inside two clinics, a page and an ad budget will not find them, and coordinator time on site is better spent. Your study is already at or near target and the shortfall is in one stratum, where targeted outreach beats broad traffic. Your institution flatly forbids study material on non-institutional domains, which some do — check before you buy, because a subdomain arrangement can take longer to negotiate than the recruitment window. Or your budget cannot cover ad spend on top of the tool: the page is the conversion half, the traffic is the other half, and at a $35.14 average cost-per-click in this category a page with no media budget behind it is an expensive way to publish a document.
The default analytics for a landing page tell you about clicks, form submissions and cost per lead. None of those is the number your sponsor, your PI or your funder cares about. The chain that matters is: impression → click → pre-screen completed → screening call held → screened eligible → consented → enrolled. A page optimised for the third step will happily wreck the seventh, because the easiest way to raise form submissions is to make eligibility vaguer, and vaguer eligibility produces unqualified calls that consume the coordinator time you were trying to save.
Set it up so that each campaign and each approved variant carries a tracking parameter that persists into whatever the coordinator records against the participant, even if that is a spreadsheet column labelled “source”. Then your monthly recruitment report can say which variant produced enrolments rather than which produced leads. When the two disagree — and they usually do — trust the enrolment figure and change the page in the direction of more specificity, not less.
Two practical notes. Be careful with third-party tracking pixels on a page reached by people with a specific diagnosis; the fact that someone visited a page about a named condition is itself sensitive, and a number of health systems have had to unwind exactly this. Keep advertising pixels off the pre-screener and thank-you steps at minimum, and check your institution’s position before adding any. And keep a dated archive of every approved variant, its live dates and its results — you will need it for the recruitment section of your progress report, and reconstructing it afterwards from a page builder’s version history is miserable. For the general mechanics of measuring page performance, our notes on conversion rate optimisation tools cover the tooling; the discipline above is what makes it applicable to a trial.
For a single-site or small multi-site academic study, the setup that survives contact with both the IRB and the finance office looks like this. The page itself lives in Unbounce — Build at $99/mo ($74 annual) if you are running one approved version, Experiment at $149/mo ($112 annual) once you have pre-approved variants to split. Verified 18 August 2026. Traffic comes from paid search on the condition plus geography, and from targeted social; both ad creatives go through the same approval package as the page.
Screening data, if you capture any, goes to REDCap or your institution’s covered form system, embedded or linked. Consent documents go through a signature tool on a tier that carries a BAA — for Sign.Plus that is Enterprise at $49.99/mo, though audit trails and eIDAS are included on all tiers, which matters for European sites. Verified 18 August 2026. If your recruitment involves an ongoing participant community — a registry, a rare-disease cohort, a long-running panel you re-recruit from — a membership platform is a better home for that than a mailing list; see our comparison of community platforms. And if you are coordinating recruitment social posts across several sites with different comms teams needing to approve them, staged approvals in a scheduler are worth more than the scheduler itself; our scheduler comparison covers which tiers include multi-stage approval.
Total tooling cost for the page layer sits in the low hundreds per month. The honest framing for a budget conversation: that figure is small relative to the cost of a study running three months past its recruitment deadline, and small relative to the ad spend it is there to convert. It is not small relative to doing nothing, and if the page will not get paid traffic pointed at it, it is not worth buying.
Unbounce lets a study team publish and switch pre-approved recruitment wordings without a web ticket, and hold pending variants in draft while the amendment clears. Starter $29/mo ($22 annual); Experiment $149/mo ($112 annual) for unlimited A/B. Verified 18 August 2026. Pair it with a BAA-covered system for anything clinical.
From $29/mo ($22 billed annually)
See Unbounce pricing → Opens on the vendor’s site · CASRAI referral link
Assume yes. Most IRBs and research ethics committees treat anything a prospective participant sees before consent as recruitment material, and that includes the landing page, the advert driving traffic to it, and the wording of any pre-screening questions. Submit the page copy, the ad copy and the pre-screener as one package rather than assuming the page is “just a website”. Confirm the specific expectation with your own board, because the boundary of what counts as material varies more than you would expect.
Because the two pages are written for different readers. The institutional listing exists to record the protocol accurately for reviewers, clinicians and registries; the recruitment page exists to help one person decide whether this applies to them and what happens if they get in touch. The dedicated page can also be edited by the study team once the wording is approved, carries campaign tracking, and is something a comms team will actually allow you to run ads to.
Only if you are careful about what you store. Two or three yes/no questions used to branch the page — without saving the answers alongside contact details — are generally workable. As soon as identified health answers are stored, the tool holding them needs a BAA in the US or an appropriate processor arrangement under UK GDPR, and mainstream page builders including Unbounce do not offer that at self-serve pricing. The common solution is to keep the marketing copy in the page builder and hand off to REDCap or your EDC for real screening.
Starter is $29/mo ($22 annual), Build $99/mo ($74), Experiment $149/mo ($112, with unlimited A/B testing), and Optimize $249/mo ($187, adding Smart Traffic), with 25% off annual billing. Verified 18 August 2026. Most single studies are well served by Build for one approved version, moving to Experiment once you have two or three pre-approved variants worth splitting traffic between.
Both are credible landing page products with different emphases — Instapage skews towards agencies and enterprise ad teams, Leadpages towards simpler self-serve use — and either can host an approved recruitment page. We do not quote their prices here because we only publish prices we have read directly off a vendor pricing page and verified on a date. Check their current pages yourself, and ask all of them the same question: what happens to a form submission containing a health answer, and will you sign a BAA for it.
Do not treat it as testing in the usual sense. Submit two or three complete variants in your initial approval package, each varying one meaningful element such as the headline framing or where the time commitment appears, so all of them arrive pre-approved. Then split traffic between things you are already permitted to say. The mistake is planning an iterative optimisation programme and discovering that a single amendment cycle consumes most of your recruitment window.
Yes, with fewer constraints. A behavioural study, a cohort survey or a device usability panel has the same core problem — an unfindable page written for reviewers rather than participants — and benefits from the same fix. Your ethics committee may still review recruitment wording, and data protection obligations still apply to whatever the form collects, but the rules on implied benefit and consent-adjacent language are usually less restrictive than for an interventional trial.
Related reading: Pre-Screening vs screening — Pre-screening is the informal eligibility check that precedes formal clinical trial screening and consent, often conducted via chart review under a HIPAA/IRB pre-screening waiver.
See also: phase 0 clinical trial.
Follow CASRAI
Research-administration guidance, standards updates and independent tool reviews.
Last reviewed: 9 October 2026
Ask CASRAI · free to try
Ask your first 2 questions free below. Subscribers get 150 a day for $29 a month.
An AI assistant specialized in research administration. It cites the sources behind every answer, labels web answers and says when it can't answer.
Answers draw on CASRAI's guides and dictionary plus the federal and funder documents we index: Federal Register, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov and UKRI.
Works on this site and inside Claude, Cursor and the AI tools you already use.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
Referenced across the research world
View CASRAI adoption →
Ask CASRAI · Regulatory Radar
An AI assistant specialized in research administration. Every answer links its sources to check before you act. 2 questions free, no account. $29/month after.
Subscribe — $29/month
Built on open standards
Federated with
One email a month · The CASRAI Bulletin
A six-minute editorial digest of what actually changed in research-administration standards — and what is about to.
No tracking pixels, no click-tracking, never shared with partners or sponsors. One-click unsubscribe. Double opt-in — unconfirmed addresses are deleted within 24 hours.
CASRAI
Standards for Research Administration · Est. 2006 · ISSN (pending)
CASRAI publishes the CASRAI Dictionary and reference material for research-administration information, a programme of The Health Initiative. Content released under CC-BY 4.0 unless otherwise marked. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy is a NISO-stewarded standard (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022).
Follow CASRAI
Cite + reuse

source