—
Men are often described as harder to reach when it comes to healthcare. They may be less likely to talk openly about certain health issues, engage with health information or take the first step toward seeking care.
But the reasons behind that are not always as simple as they seem.
Data from Clariness, a patient recruitment company focused on connecting people with clinical trials, shows that men can be more difficult and more expensive to reach through some recruitment channels. At the same time, once they do engage, they may be just as likely, or in some cases more likely, to move forward.
That difference is important because it suggests that the challenge may not always be a lack of interest. Sometimes the bigger issue is simply getting men to engage in the first place.
Men may be harder to reach, but not harder to convert
In one Clariness analysis of social media recruitment, men were 100% more expensive to generate initial interest from and 109% more expensive to ultimately enroll than women.
At first glance, those numbers seem to support the idea that men are simply harder to recruit.
But there was another part of the data that stood out.
Among those who did engage, men had an enrollment conversion rate of 26.2% compared with 22.1% for women.
In other words, the biggest gap appeared earlier in the process. Men were harder to get in front of and harder to get interested, but those who did engage were not necessarily less willing to continue.
That changes the way healthcare organizations should think about the problem.
If fewer men click on a health ad or respond to outreach, it does not automatically mean they are less interested in their health or less willing to participate. It may mean the message, format, imagery or channel is not reaching them in the right way.
Even the imagery matters
Clariness also tested whether the gender shown in recruitment ads affected engagement.
The result was somewhat unexpected. Images featuring women affected by the condition performed better than images of men, even among male audiences.
That does not mean female imagery will always perform better, but it does show how easy it is to make assumptions about what people will respond to.
Healthcare outreach can become overly simplified. If the target audience is men, it may seem logical to use male imagery and male-focused messaging. But patient behavior does not always follow those assumptions.
The better approach is to test what actually works.
That means looking at the language, the image, the platform, and the way the health issue is introduced. Small details can affect whether someone keeps scrolling or decides to learn more.
Sensitive health topics create another barrier
Some of the strongest examples of reluctance appear around conditions that can feel embarrassing or difficult to discuss.
Clariness saw this in a survey of 2,500 men in Germany related to chronic heart failure and erectile dysfunction.
Of those surveyed, 11.5% reported having erectile dysfunction. Among the men who reported ED, 34.5% did not want to answer further questions about it.
That reluctance remained even though the survey was anonymous and respondents were reminded that their answers could not be traced back to them.
Among those who did continue answering questions, 33.4% said they had never spoken to a doctor about their erectile dysfunction.
That points to a barrier that is harder to solve with advertising alone.
Privacy matters, but privacy does not automatically remove discomfort. A person can know that a survey is anonymous and still feel uneasy talking about a sensitive condition.
For healthcare organizations, that means outreach has to do more than explain that a service, study, or treatment exists. It may also need to make the conversation itself feel more normal and less intimidating.
This is not as simple as saying men do not engage with healthcare
It would be easy to take these findings and turn them into a broad conclusion about men and healthcare.
Clariness cautions against that.
The company has also seen studies and countries where male engagement and enrollment performed better than female engagement. Gender can influence recruitment, but it is only one part of the picture.
Condition type, country, financial circumstances, education, previous healthcare experiences and cultural expectations can all shape whether someone engages.
Clariness’s broader research on clinical trial participation supports that point.
Across a larger survey population covering nine countries and a range of backgrounds, 72% of respondents said they would be open to participating in a clinical trial. Only 24%Â had ever participated.
That gap suggests many people may already be willing to take part in research. The challenge is often getting them from interest to participation.
The barriers go far beyond gender
Clariness’ larger research also looked at what stops people from participating in clinical trials.
Fear of side effects was one of the most commonly cited concerns. Others included the time involved, potential travel costs, and not knowing enough about clinical trials.
Those barriers can affect men and women alike.
A man who does not respond to a recruitment campaign may be uncomfortable with the condition being discussed. He may also be worried about side effects, unsure what participation involves or unable to take time away from work to attend appointments.
Another patient may have completely different concerns.
That is why the larger lesson is not simply that healthcare needs a better strategy for reaching men.
It needs better ways to understand why different groups of people disengage.
Better recruitment starts with fewer assumptions
There are meaningful differences in how men and women sometimes interact with healthcare information. Those differences are worth paying attention to.
They should not become stereotypes.
For Clariness, the focus is on adapting recruitment based on what patients actually respond to. That can include changing messaging, testing different imagery, using different platforms and making the process easier to navigate.
It can also mean recognizing that what works for one group may not work for another.
A campaign for erectile dysfunction will come with different barriers than one focused on heart disease. A campaign in Germany may perform differently than one in the United States. Age, culture, and personal experience can change the way someone responds to the same message.
The goal is not to build one formula for men and another for women.
It is to understand what is stopping a particular patient from taking the next step.
The data suggests that many people are more open to participating in healthcare and research than their behavior might initially suggest.
The challenge is finding better ways to reach them.
—
