We tested the thesis. The market runs on outdated information.
Before building TrialBridge around Brazil's 2024 reform, we asked the people who actually pick trial countries whether the perception gap is real — and whether closing it changes their decision. It is, and it does.
The thesis, tested claim by claim
Each claim behind TrialBridge was written down before fieldwork. Here is how each one fared against the data.
The reform replaced the double ethics review with a single ~30-business-day review and capped ANVISA at 90 business days. Only 6% knew the details.
Likelihood to include Brazil in the next 12 months rose from 3.18 to 4.13 (0–10 scale). Among industry-qualified respondents: +1.11, with high intent going 23% → 37%.
41% among the industry-qualified, and the #1 single dealbreaker (20%). Add ethics review and start-up time: 34% of dealbreakers are things Lei 14.874 directly addressed.
One paragraph about the reform, read mid-survey
Respondents rated their likelihood to include Brazil (Q8), then read a one-line description of Lei 14.874, then rated again (Q10). Same person, same sitting — the only thing that changed was what they knew.
Intent to include Brazil in the next 12 months
0–10 scale · n=125Brazil after the paragraph (x̄ 4.13) outscores the rest of LatAm (Q11, x̄ 3.86) — the reform is a Brazil-specific advantage, not a regional halo.
Barriers, ranked — and who already fixed which
"Pick up to 3 biggest barriers to running a trial in Brazil / LatAm." Green tags mark the ones Lei 14.874 already addressed; the rest is what TrialBridge and its network cover.
- Regulatory approval timelines Reform fixed this34% · 41% qualified
- Site quality & consistency We built this26% · 32% qualified
- Language / documentation26% · 25% qualified
- No local relationships or familiarity We built this26% · 27% qualified
- Importation / customs In our network24% · 31% qualified
- Political / economic / currency risk22% · 27% qualified
- Overall start-up time Reform fixed this18% · 23% qualified
- Ethics committee review Reform fixed this16% · 18% qualified
- Data quality & monitoring15% · 17% qualified
Multi-select, so columns don't sum to 100%. "Qualified" = pharma, biotech, CRO, and clinical-research-adjacent respondents (n=71). Asked one level deeper — "which ONE kills the decision?" — regulatory timelines leads again (20%), with "no local relationships" second (15%).
They asked for de-risking, not discounts
"What would most increase the trials you'd place in Brazil / LatAm?" The top three asks map one-to-one onto what TrialBridge ships.
- Local regulatory / feasibility experts In our network38% · 48% qualified
- Vetted, quality-certified site network We built this34% · 41% qualified
- Proof: recent fast start-up case studies28% · 34% qualified
- SLA-backed start-up timeline guarantees25% · 31% qualified
- Importation & customs support In our network24% · 21% qualified
- Pre-identified investigators with patients We built this22% · 28% qualified
- Contracting & budget templates19% · 23% qualified
- Transparent site-cost benchmarks18% · 14% qualified
Pick up to 3 · N=125 · bars scaled to the top answer. Price levers (cost benchmarks) rank below trust levers (local experts, vetted sites, proof) — the objection is risk, not budget.
Brazil doesn't lose to Mexico. It loses to inertia.
"When Brazil competes for a trial slot, which country does it usually lose to?" — asked in wave 2. The answer isn't a rival market.
Where the slot goes instead
Pick up to 2 · wave 2, n=75- US — trial kept domestic48%
- "We don't consider Brazil"21%
- Mexico17%
- Argentina13%
- Spain12%
- Australia9%
Don't know 33% · about the same 27% · somewhat/clearly worse 21%. Only 18% rate Brazil better. Nobody has shown them the difference — which is exactly why one paragraph moves intent.
Q13 · wave 2, n=75The country list locks before anyone calls a CRO
Concept 30% + feasibility 30%. Only 6% wait for CRO selection — visibility has to arrive before the shortlist exists.
56% never considered it, 26% considered but didn't. Just 10% have touched Brazil — greenfield, not a knife-fight.
72 of 125 said yes to a 15-minute follow-up via Prolific — a warm panel for the next research round.
Who answered, and what we won't claim
| Dimension | Breakdown |
|---|---|
| Recruitment | Prolific panel → Tally instrument (tally.so/r/9qyNOV), two waves |
| Completes | N=125 unique (wave 1 n=50 + wave 2 n=77, 2 duplicate IDs removed) · July 10–11, 2026 |
| Role | Pharma 21% · clinical-research-adjacent 18% · biotech 11% · CRO 7% · other 43% |
| Qualified subset | n=71 (57%) — pharma, biotech, CRO, clinical-adjacent |
| Company HQ | US 73% · UK/EU 21% · other 6% · Brazil 1% |
| Wave 2 additions | Competitive questions: who Brazil loses to, Brazil vs alternative |
Honest limits
- Directional, not powered. N=125 from a single panel; treat point estimates as signals, not measurements.
- Within-subject design. Before/after in one sitting can invite demand effects — though 46% held their score and 6% moved down, which argues against pure politeness.
- Stated intent ≠ placed trials. We measured willingness, not behavior.
- 43% adjacent respondents. "Other" roles are kept in the headline numbers and split out in the qualified cut throughout. Wave 2 skews US (combined HQ 73% US).
Full instrument, response data, and analysis available on request.
The gap is real. We built the bridge.
Decision-makers move the moment they can see what Brazil actually offers. TrialBridge puts that proof where the decision happens — at feasibility.