Objectives Recruiting large, diverse cohorts efficiently can speed the translation of findings into care across a range of scientific disciplines and medical specialties. Yet, efficient recruitment can be hampered by factors such as financial barriers, logistical concerns, and lack of resources for patients and clinicians. Here we use a case study of a large, prospective trial of a multicancer early detection test to describe how the study team tracked enrollment, protocol fidelity, and participant experience and iteratively adapted procedures. Methods While conducting a large, prospective trial of a multicancer early detection blood test at Geisinger, an integrated health system in central Pennsylvania, we monitored recruitment progress, fidelity to protocol procedures, and participants satisfaction. Tracking mechanisms such as paper records, electronic health records, research databases, dashboards, and electronic files were utilized to measure each outcome. We then reviewed study procedures and timelines to list the implementation strategies that were used to address barriers to recruitment, protocol fidelity and participant satisfaction. Results We enrolled 10,006 women ages 65 to 75 over 22 months. Adaptations to recruitment and enrollment methods that contributed to achieving the enrollment goal included adopting group consenting, improving visit convenience, increasing electronic capture and tracking of data and source documents, staffing optimization via leveraging resources external to the study team when appropriate, and integrating the disclosure of study results into routine clinical care without adding unfunded work for physicians. We maintained high protocol fidelity and positive participant experience as exhibited by a very low protocol deviation rate and a low number of participant complaints. Conclusion Recruiting rapidly for large studies, and thereby facilitating clinical translation, requires a nimble, creative approach that marshals available resources and changes course according to data. Planning a rigorous assessment of a studys implementation outcomes prior to study recruitment can further ground study adaptations and facilitate translation into practice. This can be accomplished by proactively and continuously assessing and revising implementation strategies.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

It doesnt meet the definition of a clinical trial which involves allocation to groups

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb9601

This study was funded by Marcus Foundation through Johns Hopkins University.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Geisingers Institutional Review Board of Geisinger gave ethical approval of this work.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.