Bond Health vs media recruitment: Antidote and 1nHealth

Why do sites choose Bond over media recruitment?

• EHR screening and ad campaigns in one platform. Bond starts with the patients the site already treats, screening its EHR against each protocol, and sets up Meta and Google ad campaigns for your studies to reach patients beyond the site's records. Leads from those ads flow straight into Bond's voice and SMS/text agents for pre-screening and scheduling, alongside patients found in your EHR.^⁠[18],[19]
• Eligibility checked in the chart first. Identify reads clinical notes, prescriptions and lab results, plus imaging data and other unstructured documents, including pathology, radiology and molecular reports, and ranks each match with the evidence for every criterion, for fewer screen failures.^⁠[18],[19]
• Agents that start from the chart. Bond's voice agents start from what Identify found, so they skip questions the chart already answers, can explain why the patient was contacted, and can pre-screen and book a visit in one conversation, in the patient's language and with a live transfer to your coordinators when the site wants one. Bond reports a 3x contact rate.^⁠[19],[18]
• Every open study at once. Bond screens each patient against every open study at the site, so a patient who screens out of one study can be matched to another.^⁠[19]
• Consent support in the same workflow. Plain-language explanations, patient Q&A and staff escalation, with 90%+ completion reported for consent support. The site and PI obtain consent (Consent).^⁠[18]
• Support until close-out. After enrollment, the same agents send visit reminders, book transportation, collect symptoms and diaries, run side-effect check-ins and flag participants at risk of dropping out, and Bond keeps improving outreach messaging until study close-out.^⁠[19]
• No integration fee. A volume-based platform fee plus a success fee per randomized patient, with no integration fee (pricing).^⁠[18],[19]

As of September 2026, Bond is the only vendor in our comparison table whose public materials describe software that reads EHR notes against a protocol, contacts patients by voice and text, and supports informed consent.

How do Bond, Antidote and 1nHealth compare, capability by capability?

Competitor entries come from each vendor's public materials, reviewed in September 2026. "Not publicly documented" means we found no public description, not that the capability does not exist; ask each vendor directly.

Can Bond do what media recruiters are known for?

Antidote and 1nHealth promote several strengths on their own sites. Here is how Bond covers each one.

• Reaching patients through digital marketing. Antidote connects patients with research through digital marketing and its partner network, and 1nHealth recruits direct to patient.^⁠[1],[7] Bond sets up Meta and Google ad campaigns for your studies, and leads from those ads flow straight into its voice and SMS/text agents for pre-screening and scheduling, alongside patients found in your EHR. Bond keeps improving outreach messaging until study close-out.^⁠[19]
• Pre-screening before the site gets involved. Antidote says it prescreens patients before referring them, and 1nHealth describes multiple levels of pre-screening.^⁠[2],[7] For patients found in your EHR, Bond checks every criterion against the chart first; its voice agents then skip questions the chart already answers and can pre-screen and book a visit in one conversation.^⁠[18],[19]
• Patient conversations and support. Antidote describes a contact center for patient support, and 1nHealth sends automated SMS follow-ups.^⁠[3],[7] Bond's voice and text agents tell patients that AI is used, and patients can reach a person at any time, by live transfer to a coordinator or a callback, as the site prefers. Conversations and consent Q&A run in the patient's preferred language, including English, Spanish and Mandarin, with mid-call switching.^⁠[18],[19]
• One place to track enrollment. 1nHealth puts its 1nData tools in a single login.^⁠[7] Bond's real-time dashboard and audit trail report patients matched, contacted, pre-screened, consented and randomized, along with time to enrollment and coordinator hours saved.^⁠[18]
• Keeping participants engaged. 1nHealth says its retention strategies are tailored to each trial and patient population.^⁠[6] After enrollment, Bond's same voice and SMS agents send visit reminders, book transportation, collect symptoms and diaries, run side-effect check-ins and flag participants at risk of dropping out, and reminders can also go by email.^⁠[19]
• Paying for results. Antidote describes a risk-sharing payment model, and 1nHealth prices by milestones such as signed ICFs or randomization.^⁠[2],[6] Bond charges its success fee per randomized patient, on top of a volume-based platform fee, and charges no integration fee.^⁠[18],[19]
• Many therapeutic areas. Both list a range of areas, including dermatology and immunology.^⁠[2],[7] Bond's screening is configured from each protocol's own criteria, so it works for drug and device studies alike.^⁠[19]

What does published research show about ad-driven cost and conversion?

In a 2023 late-life depression trial, provider referrals converted to randomization at 30.3%, against 4.3% for Facebook self-referrals.^⁠[11] A 2020 meta-analysis found that offline recruitment turned screened people into enrollees at a higher rate than online recruitment, and its authors suggest this could be because sites already hold health records of suitable patients.^⁠[9] Both findings favor starting from patients already known to their care team or site. Bond starts there, with the site's own EHR, and sets up Meta and Google ad campaigns to fill the gaps.^⁠[18],[19]

Ads also take most of the outreach budget. In a 2026 Tufts CSDD study of 32 studies from eight sponsors and CROs, social media, including Facebook, Instagram and Google ads, averaged 64.7% of centralized patient-outreach budgets.^⁠[8] The figures below describe ad-driven and online recruitment in general, not Antidote or 1nHealth, and settings vary widely.

What does a media referral ask of the site?

Each referral still has to be reached, confirmed and booked, and unless the vendor handles those steps, the work falls to site staff. Clariness, a recruitment vendor, reported in 2024 from its global data that sites take an average of 17 days to first contact a patient who has expressed interest and 30.5 days to schedule the first visit.^⁠[14] In a May 2026 myTomorrows survey of 100 US site staff, 52% said at least one in five referrals is ruled ineligible before formal screening; the survey does not break referrals down by source.^⁠[15]

Bond moves that work earlier and hands much of it to its agents. Leads from the Meta and Google ad campaigns Bond sets up flow straight into its voice and SMS/text agents for pre-screening and scheduling, alongside patients found in your EHR, instead of arriving at the site as referrals.^⁠[19] Each EHR match arrives with its chart evidence, and Bond's voice agents can pre-screen and book a visit in one conversation, with a human callback whenever a patient asks for one.^⁠[18],[19] An SCRS article notes that coordinators already juggle upwards of 22 logins for a single study; Bond puts EHR screening, patient outreach and consent tracking in one workflow instead of three vendors.^⁠[16],[18]

Bond signs a business associate agreement, and its implementation team handles the EHR integration end to end, with no integration fee; full integration takes 48 hours, depending on the EHR, IT review and interface method.^⁠[18],[19] Bond is HIPAA compliant and SOC 2 Type I compliant, and its public Trust Center lists 73 HIPAA Security Rule controls, monitored continuously by Vanta.^⁠[19],[21] See security, and the outreach guide for IRB and privacy review of outreach.

What if your study needs patients beyond your records?

Some studies need patients outside the site's records, for example in a rare disease, where patients and caregivers seek out studies online, or where a site has no patients for the indication.^⁠[16] Bond sets up Meta and Google ad campaigns for those studies itself, and leads from those ads flow straight into its voice and SMS/text agents for pre-screening and scheduling, alongside patients found in your EHR.^⁠[19] Like any recruitment material, ad copy needs IRB review before it runs.^⁠[17] If you already have leads from a media vendor, a pilot can run outreach, pre-screening and scheduling on that list too.^⁠[18]

How can you test Bond against media recruitment on your own data?

Bond welcomes a head-to-head pilot. Run it on the same protocol and the same lead list, then compare evidence quality, contact rate, time to first visit and cost per randomized patient.

1. 1

   Pick one protocol

   Choose a study your media vendor is already recruiting for, so both sources work the same criteria.

2. 2

   Screen your EHR with Bond

   Identify ranks matches with chart evidence for each criterion. Have coordinators adjudicate a sample, including borderline cases, under a BAA.

3. 3

   Give Bond's agents part of the same leads

   A pilot can run outreach, pre-screening and scheduling on a list the site already has, such as ad leads. Compare contact rate and time to first visit against your usual follow-up.^⁠[18]

4. 4

   Track every source to randomization

   Record referrals, first contact, screening visits, screen failures and randomizations by source. In trials that combined social media with traditional recruitment, social media's share of enrollees ranged from 0% to 49%, so the mix is worth measuring.^⁠[13]

5. 5

   Compare cost per randomized patient

   Add ad spend, vendor fees and coordinator hours, then divide by randomizations. Bond's dashboard reports coordinator hours saved.^⁠[18]

6. 6

   Check the paperwork

   FDA guidance treats recruitment ads as the start of informed consent and expects the IRB to approve them. Confirm IRB review of ads and outreach scripts, who holds prescreening data, and audit logs.^⁠[17]

Ask for Bond's technical report, available on request, which reports benchmark results on public datasets, including 0.9312 micro F1 on the held-out n2c2 2018 cohort-selection benchmark.^⁠[22] The vendor evaluation checklist turns these steps into questions, and the recruitment software comparison covers other tools.

How was this comparison made?

Bond Health, which sells recruitment software covering EHR screening, ad campaigns and patient outreach and competes with the vendors named, wrote this page in September 2026. Competitor information comes from the vendors' public websites and press releases, accessed that month. Cost, conversion and workload figures come from peer-reviewed studies, a Tufts CSDD analysis, FDA guidance, an SCRS article and data published by recruitment vendors. Bond's capabilities come from its website, its April 2026 ACRP chapter presentation, its Trust Center, its technical report and product information provided by Bond. Vendor figures are self-reported and were not independently checked. We used no internal competitive material.