Skip to content
Clarrio.ai

Benefits by stakeholder

One longitudinal health record with benefits for five stakeholder groups

Choose your organization to see the problems we focus on, what you receive, and the KPIs you can measure.

Request a demo Benefits & evidence

Pharma & biotech

Generate richer evidence from the lives patients actually lead

Medical affairs, HEOR, clinical development and RWE teams need longitudinal data that conventional records do not contain: how patients feel, function and adhere between scheduled visits

  • Longitudinal real-world data
  • Treatment experience and adherence research
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Disease-specific cohort characterization
  • Observational study support
  • Post-authorization evidence strategies
  • Evidence beyond conventional clinical records
See the full pharma & biotech page

Analysis-ready datasets

Person-week variables with a data dictionary and audit trail.

Cohort characterization

Multimodal profiles of a treated population over time.

PRO and adherence summaries

Completion and trends by timepoint and site.

KPIs you can measure

  • Cost per analyzable participant
  • PRO completion rate
  • Longitudinal data coverage
  • Time from enrollment to analysis-ready data

Benefits in practice

Program benefits and evidence requirements by stakeholder

Pharma & biotech

Start with the evidence question a decision-maker actually needs answered

Routine records can describe encounters and prescriptions while leaving daily function, symptom burden and experience under-observed. Adding remote data can fill selected gaps, but a large dataset is not automatically decision-ready. Population selection, questionnaire suitability, exposure timing and missing observations can all change the interpretation of a longitudinal analysis.

  1. 01

    Specify the evidence objective

    Define the population, observation window, outcome concept and intended decision before selecting sources.

  2. 02

    Collect and reconcile

    Combine appropriately scoped Patient App reports with available clinical and device data in the Platform; keep reported experience separate from recorded events.

  3. 03

    Review before analysis

    Use source-aware review to inspect context and quality. Agree variable definitions, analysis methods and limitations with the study team.

For the professional team

Clinical development, medical affairs and HEOR teams can work from a common record while asking different questions. Clinical operations needs coverage by site and timepoint; an evidence analyst needs definitions and provenance; medical affairs needs an account of the population and study limitations. Those outputs should not be treated as interchangeable.

For patients, members and caregivers

Participants have a structured way to contribute the experience that encounters may miss. Questions should be meaningful, proportionate and appropriate to the population. Explain the study purpose, who reviews submissions and whether reporting receives an individual response; a research diary is not an emergency service.

For payers and program funders

A payer-facing evidence package should connect patient experience to a defined decision question and relevant population. Include baseline characteristics, follow-up, missingness and the analysis method. Patient-reported experience can complement other evidence, but it does not alone establish comparative effectiveness, economic value or a coverage recommendation.

Illustrative review brief
Population definition
Eligibility, enrollment dates and relevant baseline characteristics
Longitudinal variables
Source, units, assessment window and missing-data conventions
Evidence limitations
Selection, confounding and generalisability to the decision population

Workflow illustration · not a customer result or live record

What to evaluate before making a claim

Assess suitability against the research question: provenance, completeness, accuracy and relevance. Predefine the analysis rather than choosing a favorable pattern after viewing the results. Publication and payer use require appropriate scientific review.

Explore evidence and evaluation

Patients, members & caregivers

Give the person contributing data a meaningful place in the workflow

A person can complete many questions without understanding why they are being asked or who will read the answers. Device observations may look precise while missing personal context. A useful longitudinal journey starts with the person's priorities and makes the reporting purpose, burden and review arrangements understandable.

  1. 01

    Explain the purpose

    Agree what the care or research program needs to learn and what participation involves.

  2. 02

    Capture lived experience

    Use appropriate reports alongside available observations; distinguish the patient's own answers from caregiver observations.

  3. 03

    Bring context to review

    Discuss a dated interval with the responsible professional, including what is missing and what matters to the person.

For the professional team

Teams gain context for a more specific conversation, but should not assume that a missed report means a person disengaged. Accessibility, fatigue, language and connectivity may affect reporting. Define support and review arrangements before introducing new questions.

For patients, members and caregivers

Patients and members can keep a dated account of experiences they might otherwise forget. Caregivers can contribute observations when appropriately scoped, without replacing the person's own perspective. Personal patterns invite discussion; they are not instructions or proof that a particular routine produced an outcome.

For payers and program funders

A program's apparent reach can hide who could not participate. Payers and commissioners should examine access, reporting burden and representativeness alongside outcome evidence. Patient experience is an important perspective in appraisal, not a shortcut to an economic conclusion.

Illustrative review brief
Personal context
The person's own priorities and dated reports
Reporting perspective
Patient answer or appropriately identified caregiver observation
Review arrangement
Who reviews reports, when and through which contact pathway

Workflow illustration · not a customer result or live record

What to evaluate before making a claim

Ask whether reporting is understandable, manageable and meaningful. Examine completion alongside accessibility and support needs. A high completion rate alone does not show that people feel heard or that a program has improved their health.

Explore evidence and evaluation

At a glance

Compare all stakeholders

Request a demo

Explore disease, treatment and behavior together

Explore how clinical, treatment and behavioral information align around your program and the research or review questions your team needs to answer.

Book a demo

Opens the Calendly booking page in a new tab.

Prefer to write first? Send an inquiry and the team will reply.