On paper, most fieldwork agencies can do the basics. Recruit participants. Fill quotas. Deliver on time. But anyone who’s worked on a tricky project knows the difference isn’t in what’s promised, it’s in how it’s actually done. The judgement calls. The trade-offs. The way problems are handled when the brief meets reality.
So, if you’re a research or market research agency looking for a fieldwork partner, the questions you ask upfront matter more than you might think. Not because you’re trying to catch anyone out, but because the answers will tell you how they really operate when the pressure’s on, whether that’s across qualitative fieldwork, quantitative fieldwork, or more specialist areas like healthcare fieldwork.
Here’s where we’d start.
How do you actually approach recruitment?
Most fieldwork agencies will tell you they can “reach your target audience.” That’s a given. The more useful question is how.
Are they leaning heavily on panels, or do they build recruitment around the audience and the project? Do they adapt their approach depending on sensitivity, incidence, or geography? And crucially, what do they do when the obvious routes don’t deliver?
For example, recruiting a broad consumer sample for quantitative fieldwork is one thing. Recruiting niche audiences for qualitative fieldwork, or patients and healthcare professionals for healthcare fieldwork, is something else entirely. That often requires a mix of methods, community partnerships, and more than just a bit of creative persistence.
If the answer sounds too neat, it probably is. Good recruitment tends to be a bit messier behind the scenes, because it’s being actively worked rather than passively filled.
How do you ensure participants are who they say they are?
This is one of those questions that separates process from practice.
Most agencies will mention screeners. Some will mention checks. We’ll mention Acumonitor. But what you’re really looking for is how robust their participant verification process is, and where human judgement comes into play.
Do they sense-check responses? Do they look for patterns that suggest over-professional respondents? How do they handle participants who technically qualify but don’t quite feel right?
In reality, verification isn’t a single step. It’s a series of small decisions that build confidence in the final sample. A strong fieldwork agency will be able to talk you through that in a way that feels considered, not scripted, whether they’re delivering quantitative fieldwork at scale or smaller, more nuanced qualitative fieldwork projects.
What happens when recruitment gets difficult?
Because it will. At some point.
Whether it’s a tight turnaround, a low-incidence audience, or quotas that narrow the pool significantly, recruitment rarely goes exactly to plan. The question isn’t whether challenges arise, but how they’re handled.
Do they flag issues early, or try to quietly fix them in the background? Are they comfortable recommending adjustments to keep the integrity of the research intact? Can they explain the trade-offs in a way that helps you make informed decisions with your client? Have they got case studies to back up what they’re saying?
There’s a noticeable difference between agencies who “deliver what was asked for” and those who actively manage the process alongside you. The latter tend to be the ones you call again, particularly on complex healthcare fieldwork or multi-market quantitative fieldwork where variables stack up quickly.
How do you balance speed with quality?
Speed is often part of the brief. Sometimes it’s the brief. But fast fieldwork without the right checks can create more problems than it solves.
It’s worth asking how timelines are built, and what gets prioritised when things are tight. Are they compressing recruitment at the expense of verification? Are they realistic about what can be achieved within a given timeframe?
A good market research agency knows that timelines matter. A good fieldwork agency knows when to push back slightly, because cutting corners at recruitment tends to show up later in the insight, whether that’s in qualitative fieldwork depth or quantitative fieldwork reliability.
How do you handle sensitive or complex topics?
Not all research is straightforward. Topics around health, finances, personal circumstances, or lived experiences require a slightly different approach.
It’s not just about finding the right people, but creating the right conditions for them to take part. That might mean more thoughtful screening, clearer communication, or simply recognising that some audiences need more time and reassurance.
If your project sits in this space, it’s worth understanding how the agency approaches it. Not in a “we’re very empathetic” sense, but in practical terms. What do they do differently? Where have they seen things go wrong before? How do they mitigate that?
This is particularly relevant for healthcare fieldwork, where recruitment often involves patients, carers, or clinicians, and where getting it right isn’t just about quotas, it’s about care, compliance, and credibility.
What does communication look like during a project?
This one often gets overlooked, but it’s where a lot of frustration creeps in.
Will you get regular updates that actually tell you something useful, or just status reports that say everything’s “on track”? Who’s your point of contact, and how involved are they in the day-to-day delivery?
In reality, fieldwork moves quickly. Situations change. Participants drop out. Quotas shift. You want a fieldwork agency that brings you into that process at the right moments, not one that disappears until delivery day.
Good communication isn’t about volume. It’s about relevance, whether you’re running a fast-turnaround quantitative fieldwork project or a more iterative qualitative fieldwork study.
Can you walk me through a recent project that didn’t go to plan?
This is usually where things get interesting.
Most agencies can talk about successful projects. Fewer are comfortable talking about the ones that required a bit of problem-solving. But those are often the most useful examples, because they show how the team thinks under pressure.
You’re not looking for perfection here. You’re looking for honesty, adaptability, and a sense that they understand the reality of fieldwork rather than presenting an idealised version of it.
Bringing it all together
Hiring a fieldwork agency isn’t about scrolling the MRS site then finding the one with the longest list of capabilities. It’s about finding the one that approaches fieldwork in a way that aligns with how you like to work.
The right questions help you get underneath the surface a little. They move the conversation away from what’s promised, and towards how things actually run when the project is live.
Because ultimately, good fieldwork tends to feel quite seamless from the outside. The participants are right. The sessions run smoothly. The data holds up.
What you don’t see is the thinking, judgement, and small decisions that made that possible. That’s what you’re really hiring.
If you’re in the middle of planning a project and want to sense-check your approach, we’re always happy to talk it through. No fanfare, just a practical conversation about what’s likely to work and where things might get tricky. Just get in touch.
Delivering complex, high-sensitivity recruitment for a UK-wide study on bowel screening behaviours
Background
When our client set out to explore the barriers to bowel screening among UK adults aged 50–75, this was never going to be a straightforward recruitment exercise. The study required a carefully balanced sample of those who had engaged with screening and those who hadn’t, alongside attitudinally segmented group discussions designed to get beneath the surface of decision-making.
But the real nuance sat in who needed to be part of the conversation.
The audience spanned lower socio-economic groups and a range of ethnic communities, with a topic that’s often difficult to talk about, let alone volunteer for. This wasn’t just about finding people. It was about reaching them in the right way, with the right tone, and building enough trust for them to take part.
The recruitment challenge
The brief came with multiple layers, each one tightening the funnel:
With IMD and ethnicity quotas fixed, the available pool narrowed quickly, particularly within older age groups. Add to that a four-week rolling timeline, and the margin for error disappeared entirely.
Acumen’s approach
This is where thoughtful recruitment from our healthcare team did the heavy lifting.
We built a strategy that was both precise and flexible, combining targeted outreach with a more human, community-led approach.
Alongside this, we worked in close partnership with the client to introduce considered flexibility on secondary quotas such as age, gender, and household income, protecting what mattered most while keeping delivery on track.
What made it work
One of the most effective elements wasn’t a tool or a platform, but people.
By tapping into family and community networks, we were able to extend our reach in a way that felt natural rather than intrusive. Younger participants became trusted connectors, opening the door to audiences who are often missed by traditional recruitment methods.
This allowed us to:
And crucially, this didn’t come at the expense of quality. Engagement, reliability, and depth of contribution remained consistently high across all groups.
Outcome
The result was a project delivered with both rigour and care:
Complex healthcare audiences deserve a thoughtful approach. Speak to Alan Shirley about how we can help.
We’re really pleased to share that Acumen is a finalist for Fieldwork Team of the Year at the BOBI Awards 2026.
Hosted by the BHBIA, the awards celebrate the very best in insight generation, and this year’s winners will be announced on Monday 27 April at the Hilton Birmingham Metropole.
Now, we’ll admit… this one feels particularly special.
Our submission was based on a healthcare brief, where we were asked to develop a fieldwork plan and set out how we would approach it. No name, no project history, no familiar credentials doing the heavy lifting. Just the thinking, the detail, and the way we approach our work.
Which, if you know us, is kind of our sweet spot.
Good fieldwork is about the consideration behind recruitment, the care taken with participants, the structure that sits underneath it all, and the ability to anticipate where things might get complicated before they do.
Healthcare research only heightens that. We’re often working with more sensitive topics, more specific audiences, and tighter parameters around how everything is conducted. It asks more of fieldwork teams, not just operationally, but in terms of judgement, empathy and precision.
That’s where our incredible healthcare team really comes into its own. They’re thoughtful, thorough, and brilliant at navigating complexity without making it feel complicated. Their the kind of team that doesn’t just follow a brief, but take the time to understand what sits behind it, and builds a plan that works in the real world.
So to be recognised in this category, based purely on how we think about and deliver fieldwork, is something we’re incredibly proud of.
A big congratulations as well to the other nominees. We’re looking forward to celebrating with you all in April!
When our client approached us to recruit participants currently using GLP-1 weight management medications for an anonymous online survey, the brief was clear, but far from simple.
Working within a sensitive health space always requires a careful balance. It’s not just about reaching the right audience, but doing so in a way that protects participant experience, maintains trust, and delivers data you can genuinely rely on.
In these contexts, a wide net isn’t always the right approach. What matters more is being deliberate in who you reach, how you engage them, and how their data is handled from start to finish.
Recruiting people actively using GLP-1 medications meant navigating both specificity and sensitivity.
On one hand, we needed to reach a clearly defined medical cohort. On the other, we needed to ensure that every response came from a real, engaged individual, not someone rushing through a survey for the incentive.
In a space that’s growing quickly, with increasing public awareness and demand, maintaining that level of authenticity becomes even more important. It also means recognising that participants aren’t just data points, they’re individuals sharing something personal, and the process needs to reflect that.
We kept the entire recruitment process in-house, drawing from our network of over 270,000 participants. That decision wasn’t just operational, it was intentional. For a topic like this, control matters. It allows us to be more selective in how we reach people, more thoughtful in how we engage them, and more confident in the quality of the data that comes back.
Rather than pushing the study out broadly, we were careful and considered in how it was distributed within our network. That more targeted approach helps ensure participants feel comfortable taking part, while also protecting the integrity of the responses.
Our healthcare specialists supported on survey wording and data handling protocols, helping to ensure the research was not only robust, but appropriate for the audience. It meant we weren’t just collecting data, we were doing it in a way that respected the people behind it.
Alongside this, our Data Specialist carried out detailed quality checks post-fieldwork, removing and replacing any responses that didn’t meet our standards. It’s a step we build in as standard, but one that becomes even more important when working within sensitive subject areas where trust and accuracy go hand in hand.
While a full week had been allocated for data collection, the required completes were achieved within just three days. We then allowed time for thorough quality control before delivering the final dataset, complete with data tables, a full day ahead of schedule.
More importantly, the quality held up. The client received a clean, reliable dataset and the confidence that the participants behind it were exactly who they needed them to be.
This project is a good example of what happens when you treat fieldwork as more than just a numbers exercise.
Keeping recruitment in-house gave us control. Bringing in healthcare expertise ensured the research was handled appropriately. Building in robust quality checks meant the final output could be trusted.
Just as importantly, it reflects the kind of relationship we aim to build with our clients. Not transactional, but collaborative.
When you’re working with a partner who understands the nuances of your audience and the responsibility that comes with sensitive research, it allows you to focus on the insight itself, rather than worrying about how the data was gathered.
We’re incredibly proud to share that Abi Fuller has been named a finalist for the 2026 AQR Wendy Gordon Pioneers Award. It’s a brilliant recognition, and one that feels particularly special because of what it represents. This isn’t just about individual achievement, but about the kind of thinking that quietly pushes the research industry forward.
If you know Abi, you’ll know she’s never been one for doing things the “usual” way. There’s always been a focus on making research feel more real, more grounded, and more reflective of how people actually behave in the environments they’re used to. That way of thinking is what led to the creation of the Healthcare Simulation Suite at Aspect Viewing Facilities.
At the time, there was a clear and frustrating gap in healthcare research. Access to NHS environments is understandably limited, and alternative options often fall short of what’s needed. Hotel rooms, hired spaces, adapted facilities… they can work, but they don’t quite capture the reality of a clinical setting. And in healthcare, that matters more than most. When an environment doesn’t feel familiar, behaviour changes. Clinicians pause where they wouldn’t usually pause, they think about actions that would normally be instinctive, and the insight you capture starts to drift away from real-world use.
The idea behind the suite was simple: create a space that feels right. Not staged or themed, but genuinely reflective of clinical environments. A space that can flex to different settings, from operating theatres to consultation rooms, with the detail and familiarity clinicians would expect in their day-to-day roles. Because when people feel comfortable, they behave naturally, and when behaviour is natural, the insight becomes far more meaningful.
Since launching, the suite has supported countless healthcare studies, spanning usability testing, medical device development and clinical simulation. For many clients, it’s opened up research that would have otherwise been difficult, delayed or simply not possible.
For Acumen Health, that’s had a real impact on what we’re able to deliver. It means we can run studies more efficiently, without relying on oversubscribed clinical environments, while still maintaining the level of realism that healthcare research demands. More importantly, it means we’re able to see behaviour as it actually happens, not adjusted or second-guessed, but instinctive. That leads to clearer insight, more confident decisions, and ultimately better outcomes.
Abi being named a finalist for this award is a reflection of that. Not just the space itself, but the thinking behind it, a belief that context matters, that detail matters, and that if we want better outcomes in healthcare, we need to get as close to real life as possible. We’re incredibly proud to see Abi recognised in this way, and proud of the work that’s made it possible.
Modern retail has been optimised for impulse for years now, we’ve all seen the end of aisle displays that tempt us with an impulse purchase, the multi buy offers that reward volume purchasing and those checkout placements that just offer one last addition to your trolley before you pay. Take a walk around your local supermarket and you’ll see aisles of messaging based around indulgence, convenience, and immediacy.
But it works. And it works because it reflects how many of us shop. We make quick decisions and our appetite, whether that’s for food, a treat or reward after “one of those days,” plays a powerful role. So, when we look at it from that perspective it’s not surprising that brands and retailers have built around that reality.
But the fun thing about human behaviour, is that it rarely stays fixed.
We’re beginning to see signs that something more deliberate is emerging, with baskets getting smaller, fewer spontaneous additions and more time spent reading labels. Of course, none of this is dramatic by itself but collectively suggests a shift in how consumers are making decisions.
One of the forces potentially accelerating this change is the growing use of GLP-1 medications. Over 1.6 million adults in the UK used the injections in 2025, and the number is set to rise dramatically in 2026. Whilst the media and public conversation has focused around the weight management, the behavioural effects appear to extend further. We spoke to consumers currently taking GLP-1s and heard consistent references to fewer impulse purchases and a clear shift toward more intentional purchases.
The participants we spoke to told us they were feeling less drawn to “treat” items, less inclined to add something simply because it was there, and more focused on buying what they had planned. The weekly shop, for some, had become more purposeful.
For brands in the food, drink and broader consumer categories this raises important notes. Promotions and marketing are often designed to encourage incremental additions, and when we use this indulgence led messaging, it assumes that the consumer is receptive to temptation. If even a quarter of shoppers begin making decisions with greater deliberation, the effectiveness of this messaging may be lessened.
But we’re not going to be all doom and gloom, it really doesn’t signal the end of the impulse buy. Retail environments will continue to encourage it, and many consumers will continue to respond. However, within certain segments, we may be seeing the emergence of a more intention-led pattern of behaviour. One characterised not by abstinence, but by selectivity.
The commercial implications are nuanced. Smaller baskets don’t automatically mean lower value, they may be reflecting reprioritisation. Loyalty could deepen around brands perceived as aligned with new goals. The brands best positioned for this environment will be those that understand how and why decision-making is changing, rather than reacting only to sales data after the fact.
GLP-1 adoption is growing, and its influence may extend beyond those directly using the medication. Behavioural shifts in one group often ripple outward over time, subtly reshaping expectations and norms.
In our full report, we draw on direct consumer insight to understand how everyday purchasing decisions are evolving in this context. The findings offer a closer look at what may sit beneath changing basket dynamics, and what brands should be paying attention to now.
You can download the full report here.
When our client approached us with a brief to recruit just six participants, it sounded straightforward on paper. In reality, it was anything but.
This project involved recruiting specific telecomms customers for 3.5-hour filmed sessions in their homes, complete with professional film crews. The sessions were designed to explore specific consumer segments in depth, so the recruitment criteria were understandably precise. But as the brief unfolded, the layers of complexity quickly became clear.
Participants needed to match specific client segments through a segmentation tool, agree with ten statements associated with that segment, and fall within a very specific age and family stage profile. On top of that, there was a logistical constraint: each participant needed to live within a 30-minute drive of the previous household to keep filming schedules manageable.
As Project Manager Sam Garlick explains:
“Finding people who matched the segment via the tool was just the first hurdle. They also had to agree with ten relevant statements, be the right age and family stage, and then live close enough to the other participants for filming logistics. It was definitely a puzzle.”
Rather than chasing an impossible idea of “perfect”, the Acumen team focused on practical problem-solving and close collaboration with the client. For each segment, we presented several strong candidates who met the brief closely, even if they weren’t an exact match in every single detail.
This approach allowed the project to move forward efficiently while still maintaining the integrity of the segmentation criteria.
The client team were equally pragmatic. In some cases, they flexed slightly on individual factors, such as accepting participants who didn’t pay for TV packages but matched every other requirement, or allowing travel distances to stretch a little further to secure the right household.
Regular conversations between the Acumen team and our client helped speed up decisions and keep recruitment moving smoothly within the tight timeframe.
Despite the complexity behind the scenes, the end result was exactly what the client needed: six carefully selected customers who reflected the required segments and were comfortable hosting extended filmed research in their homes.
Projects like this highlight what recruitment really involves. It’s rarely just about demographics. It’s about understanding the nuances of a brief, navigating practical constraints, and working closely with clients to find the best possible participants.
It’s just what we do.
When a new project lands with us at Acumen, there’s a moment of excitement. A new challenge, a new audience to understand, a new story waiting to be uncovered.
But great fieldwork doesn’t happen by accident. Behind every successful project is a clear process, careful planning and a fantastic team making sure every detail is handled properly.
Over the last 20 years we’ve refined a simple, structured approach that guides our clients from the first conversation through to fieldwork and beyond. It keeps everything running smoothly, gives our clients full visibility at every stage, and most importantly ensures the people taking part in market research truly represent the audience you want to understand.
Here’s how it works.
Every project begins with a conversation.
During the client briefing stage, we take time to properly understand what you’re trying to achieve. Your objectives, the audience you want to reach, the type of research you’re running and any practical considerations around timing or methodology.
Once we’re aligned, we formalise the brief and translate your objectives into a clear recruitment and fieldwork plan. That means agreed criteria, expectations and timelines are all in place before anything begins.
It’s the solid foundation that everything else is built on.
With the brief confirmed, we map out a realistic schedule for the project.
This timeline outlines each stage, from recruitment and screening through to fieldwork and final delivery. It gives everyone visibility on what’s happening and when, ensuring the project progresses smoothly without surprises.
Good research moves quickly, but it also moves carefully. Having a clear roadmap means we can do both.
Recruitment starts with the screener.
We develop and refine the screening questionnaire to make sure we’re reaching precisely the right participants for your research. Whether you’re speaking to consumers, patients, professionals or specialist audiences, the screener ensures we’re finding people who genuinely match the criteria.
Before anything launches, you’ll have full visibility and sign-off. That way everyone is confident we’re targeting the right voices from the outset.
Once the screener is approved, our recruitment team over at Research Opinions gets to work.
Using our 250k in-house participant community alongside carefully managed outreach, we begin sourcing the right people for your project. Every conversation is handled thoughtfully and professionally, ensuring we secure engaged participants who are genuinely representative of your audience.
Recruitment is often where the real craft of fieldwork lies. It’s about listening carefully, asking the right questions and ensuring every participant is the right fit.
Before fieldwork begins, every participant is carefully verified. We start by using Acumonitor to weed out any potentially fraudulent participants.
We then confirm that they meet the agreed criteria and compile detailed participant profiles for you to review. You’ll always have the opportunity to approve the final participants so you can feel completely confident in the people representing your audience.
It’s another layer of reassurance before research goes live.
With everything in place, fieldwork can begin.
Once the sessions are complete, we don’t simply move on to the next project. We close the loop properly, from final confirmations and incentive processing through to internal debriefs where we capture learnings and review what worked well.
It ensures every project finishes as smoothly as it started, and leaves us ready for the next brief.
A process designed to make research easier
Market research projects can involve a lot of moving parts. Recruitment, logistics, participant management, timelines and communication all need to work together seamlessly.
Our process is designed to keep things simple for our clients. You always know where the project stands, who is involved and what comes next.
Behind the scenes, our team is quietly making sure everything runs exactly as it should.
When fieldwork is handled properly, you’re free to focus on the insights that matter most.
GLP-1 medications may be dominating headlines, but the most meaningful shifts are happening away from the spotlight, in the quiet adjustments people are making to their everyday lives.
When we speak to individuals who are actually using these medications, the conversation rarely centres on dramatic transformation. Instead, it revolves around a change in pace and perception. Appetite feels different. Cravings are less urgent. Decisions that once felt automatic, particularly around food and spending, become more considered. That recalibration of instinct might seem subtle on an individual level, yet when experienced at scale, it begins to reshape patterns of consumption in ways that brands cannot afford to ignore.
For organisations operating across food, drink, retail, beauty and healthcare, this is not simply a weight management trend to monitor from a distance. It represents a behavioural shift unfolding in real time. Basket composition evolves. Portion expectations adjust. Indulgence, functionality and value are being reassessed through a different lens. What feels relevant in a world of reduced impulse may not look the same as it did even two years ago.
At the same time, the surrounding landscape adds further complexity. Private prescribing continues to grow, NHS capacity remains stretched, and alternative supply routes are emerging with their own ethical and regulatory concerns. Meanwhile, secondary markets are forming around side effects, aesthetic changes and nutritional optimisation, signalling that GLP-1 is influencing far more than appetite alone.
What makes this moment particularly significant is its steadiness. These are not overnight shifts driven by hype. They are incremental behavioural adjustments that, taken together, have meaningful commercial and cultural implications.
In our latest podcast episode, we explore what people are really telling us about life on GLP-1 medications and what those lived experiences mean for brands seeking to remain relevant in a changing environment.
