|
|
Post by puntkicker on Aug 17, 2016 16:29:15 GMT -5
I was curious if anyone knew if PPD chose alternates by of screening or quality of screening results? I went through the registration today and signed up for a screening, but out of the 5 days available for screening, only the 4th and 5th dates worked out for me. I got an appointment for the morning of the 4th date(11am, if that matters). The person on the phone seemed to at least partially understand my dilemma(weighing the hunger to get in vs not wanting to be an alternate), after she originally told me I could wait for a study where the earlier screening dates worked for me. She didn't necessarily confirm that they picked by though, so I was curious if anyone else was aware? Is there any chance they rank you by the you schedule(you know, maybe assign candidate numbers or soing) instead of these other 2 possible ods? If so, I'd be a happy person.  I mean it's about as arbitrary as first screen first serve, the way I see it. I also have a question about the 2ND screening scheduling: Can any veterans tell me how many days it generally is after the first one? Also, do they just give you a date and time for the 2nd screening, or do they give you choices, similar to the first one? Thanks in advance for any information you can share, as my mind tends to get overactive with certain new situations. While I'm at it, any VCT updates? |
|
|
|
Post by humanpincushion on Aug 28, 2016 3:24:54 GMT -5
I screened there about a month ago on a Monday. They called me the next Monday to see if I could do the physical the next day (I live 600 miles away). Was over 50 screened for 8 spots. Didn't look good, so I didn't go back. Ppd is great for locals, not so much if you travel around and hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by puntkicker on Aug 31, 2016 15:46:04 GMT -5
I screened there about a month ago on a Monday. They called me the next Monday to see if I could do the physical the next day (I live 600 miles away). Was over 50 screened for 8 spots. Didn't look good, so I didn't go back. Ppd is great for locals, not so much if you travel around and hope. Thank you for sharing that! Are you serious about the over 50 screened for only 8 spots? Did you ask them or soing? Mine has 20 spots, but if they screen that many people, the odds don't sound good. It really is hard to picture a place going that overboard though, so can anyone else share if their experience, I'd be very grateful. If they call for a physical after the screening, does that mean you likely passed the screening at least? I'm guessing passing the physical is the easy part though, right? It really seems foolish that they'd make us attend a separate day, because aren't the physicals about 5-10 minutes long? That's what I think my recent physical at Covance took, if even. Even though it seems wasteful, with nothing else lined up, the $200 in expenses and 30 hours of roundtrip driving for less than 10 minutes with a doctor may actually be worth it for me, even with the risk. You're right that this seems to heavily favor locals, but might it cut down the overall number when you factor in us traveling folks? Or has PPD done a good job of marketing locally to get a lot of participants? Can anyone else weigh in on whether they use of screening or the quality of your lab results? Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by zhaypapz on Sept 14, 2016 16:24:57 GMT -5
It is based on screen . I live in Houston and make sure I'm there at least 30 minutes before screening to check in early as possible. I also look for the most recent study posted when I'm choosing. It takes work I'm generally on the site once a day looking at what's available so I know what's fresh when I'm ready to sign up. Last few studies I have been first 5 in study. There were way more than needed screened in my most recent but even after checking in all the backups were used for people failing screening at check in.
|
|
|
|
Post by ****edadusual on Dec 1, 2016 17:34:08 GMT -5
I don't think that this is accurate...
|
|
|
|
Post by puntkicker on Dec 2, 2016 2:26:15 GMT -5
I don't think that this is accurate... Which part do you think is inaccurate? I posted the OP, so I am of course concerned. lol |
|
|
|
Post by ****edadusual on Dec 2, 2016 4:10:38 GMT -5
I don't think that this is accurate... Which part do you think is inaccurate? I posted the OP, so I am of course concerned. lol Well for the most part you're right. Larger studies do "normally" go off of 'date of screening' + 'quality of labs' but there are also variables that are not being mentioned and rarely ever are. Besides the variable of living distance or how far it is that you're traveling influencing your entry chances what's not being mentioned is 1. The Other Participants Who Are Utilizing VIV Cards (meaning technically they are guaranteed to jump the line) 2. Whether Or Not The Particular Study Is Asking For DNA Storage (this is where you sign separately to allow a sponsor to keep your genetic profile/blood samples for up to 10 years) & 3. The Sanity/Morality of The Recruiter (I've noticed pretty much everyone gets fucd sooner or later in the recruitment process depending on the recruiter or coordinator) So there are definitely variables. What I didn't know that I'm coming to understand is that once you factor travel costs for having to come to the facility 3 separate times (2 if you don't make it in and 3 if you do or "almost do") + any potential follow-up visits along with housing costs for those that travel so far that they just can't afford to go back & forth a million times, is devaluing the amount of the study payout. You're not realizing that based on the way this company does business factoring in those additional costs would lower not only the eption of study value + facility but actual payout when losses are factored is almost always $250-1000 less than given. Meaning if a study pays out 3500 and you're not local then unless you are willing to be homeless in the process 250-500+ bucks is what it's costing you to make that 3500. I honestly believe that this is why PPD set up their payment scale as such because they know a number of participants are going to loss both literal money and cost of time/travel coming to a city/area that they really have little to no experience with all in hopes of receiving a large (albeit minor) payday. It's really just corporate greed 101. Promise a large enough payout and watch the chaos ensue. Personal lives will be touched negatively every time but that's the part they don't tell you. I guess if they actually made it to where only Texas state residents could participate that it would protect us non-natives from the harm of collateral damage but it would also severely limit the potential gene pool variety which is the REAL backbone of PPD's business model. |
|
|
|
Post by puntkicker on Dec 5, 2016 3:03:01 GMT -5
Which part do you think is inaccurate? I posted the OP, so I am of course concerned. lol Well for the most part you're right. Larger studies do "normally" go off of 'date of screening' + 'quality of labs' but there are also variables that are not being mentioned and rarely ever are. Besides the variable of living distance or how far it is that you're traveling influencing your entry chances what's not being mentioned is 1. The Other Participants Who Are Utilizing VIV Cards (meaning technically they are guaranteed to jump the line) 2. Whether Or Not The Particular Study Is Asking For DNA Storage (this is where you sign separately to allow a sponsor to keep your genetic profile/blood samples for up to 10 years) & 3. The Sanity/Morality of The Recruiter (I've noticed pretty much everyone gets fucd sooner or later in the recruitment process depending on the recruiter or coordinator) So there are definitely variables. What I didn't know that I'm coming to understand is that once you factor travel costs for having to come to the facility 3 separate times (2 if you don't make it in and 3 if you do or "almost do") + any potential follow-up visits along with housing costs for those that travel so far that they just can't afford to go back & forth a million times, is devaluing the amount of the study payout. You're not realizing that based on the way this company does business factoring in those additional costs would lower not only the eption of study value + facility but actual payout when losses are factored is almost always $250-1000 less than given. Meaning if a study pays out 3500 and you're not local then unless you are willing to be homeless in the process 250-500+ bucks is what it's costing you to make that 3500. I honestly believe that this is why PPD set up their payment scale as such because they know a number of participants are going to loss both literal money and cost of time/travel coming to a city/area that they really have little to no experience with all in hopes of receiving a large (albeit minor) payday. It's really just corporate greed 101. Promise a large enough payout and watch the chaos ensue. Personal lives will be touched negatively every time but that's the part they don't tell you. I guess if they actually made it to where only Texas state residents could participate that it would protect us non-natives from the harm of collateral damage but it would also severely limit the potential gene pool variety which is the REAL backbone of PPD's business model. Don't worry, I was just the original question asker. From experience, I understand about all the costs, and you're right that a lot of first timers may not. Am I correct that you're saying that with PPD, this distance you live from them factors into the selection process? With PPD, from what I seem to remember reading on here, quality of labs aren't a deciding factor(beyond passing thr basic requirements). That can be seen as a positive or negative for some, vs a place like Covance who goes strictly by the quality of your lab results. I liked your reply about the DNA storage, but am not sure how it would effect the selection process, unless you mean if you take yourself out of the running by not signing it? I get the VIV(lol at the name) cards part. I've never been there, but I think I read a legend here that with some studies ALL of the participants selected were those with the cards. Memory isnt my strong suit, but I do seem to recall seeing that in here, and the bit of concern it caused. Who gets them again, just folks who were alternates in the past? I'll take as much info as you can give, in private message if you prefer for any reason, even if it's to not share it with the hordes of ingrates, especially the "guests" who never even sign up for an account, let alone post. Those parasites outnumber the members by over 20:1, according to the bottom of the main forum page. I'm still relatively new here, but have tried to contribute as much as possible, even when asking questions, but the hordes dont seem to have the same value system. I'd suggest the owner require registration to read, as it would ENCOURAGE more posting once the biggest barriers are out of the way. I'm guessing they may think it would hurt their ad revenue though? Of course after I complained enough about their not being a Spaulding subforum, I eventually noticed it day with no fanfare(i think the first post was a complaint about lack of studies, relatively shortly after there had been multiple high paying ones lol at some people), so maybe it is useful to voice our concerns about the board in a respectful manner? Thanks again, I really hope you post more. This board could use more members like you. I'm ready to soak up what you can share. |
|
|
|
Post by puntkicker on Jul 20, 2017 19:05:54 GMT -5
I just wanted to comment on this. Yes i think PPD choses by of screening otherwise you wouldnt see the sharks circling by the kiosk area 30 minutes before its time to check in. Lol. lol the part about the vultures near the kiosks is true. I found out it was a slight variation on this answer though. Anyone is free to PM me if they care. I had a bad experience with a study coordinator called "Francisco" there. I asked him this very question on the phone after sking the front line person the question. Francisco tells me that for this particular study, they were taking anyone whose numbers were in range. So you can imagine I was excited when mine were, and I got called back for a physical. After the physical, however, I received a call telling me the study was full. After the length of drive I put in, I called up Francisco to question him why he told me one thing on the phone, and it was another thing in reality. I asked if he would be willing to make up for this misinformation by giving me a VIP pass, being it was essentially a similar reason to what theyre normally given for. This was in voicemail, and he never even bothered calling back. I don't know if other PPD study coordinators are of better character than Francisco, or if this is par for the course there. Either way, I'd figure I'd share some data points with the community. |
|
|
|
Post by puntkicker on Jul 20, 2017 20:12:19 GMT -5
I actuslly just got a call from PPD about a study i signed up for. I got the same response. "we are fulll". This was even before they got my labs back. I then asked them why they havent been posting studies and they cited a "bussiness downturn" as the reason why. I wasnt too upset sbout not getting into that study. The med they were going to give us sounded horrible. It was for MS. It was a med that would slow down your heart rate for 6 hours after taking it ans it sould take up to a month after disuing the drug for it to return to normal. Also a side effect known as macular edema could happen. im sorry but...5k isnt worth going blind over. Lol. I dodged a bullet. The assholes think im going to be upset that i didnt get in. I was actually hoping i wouldnt. That's a good example of what I was talking about in the thread where people were lashing out at "chemo" without apparently realizing/caring about much of the other crap that doesn't fall under the label "chemo". Macular Edema doesnt sound fun. Ive had multiple out of state studies I've pulled out of after screening, because youre right that our health is worth carefully weighing these risks. My upcoming one sounds "unscary" enough so far, but what is scary is when we may find ourselves in a spot where we "need" soing more than we would at other times. I dont like surprises and wish the "informed consent" would be emailed out like Quintiles does, and like Spaulding supposedly might be doing now. "Informed" consent is only as helpful as it's done without backing someone into a corner/bending them over a barrel after travel/time/other expenses. One place has twice told me upon arrival that I'd be forced to participate in a DNA genotyping study, without compensation, or that I couldnt participate in the study. At the very least, this should be told on the PHONE or WEBSITE, before we travel from out of state. This may not matter to some people, but to some of us it is very important. If Quintiles can email informed consent sheets, why "cant" the others? Has anyone on here ever pictured "unionizing"(as much as I dislike most modern unions) to help stop us from getting bent over repeatedly, and to help enforce some common decency practices? |
|
|
|
Post by SmellYaL8r on Feb 21, 2018 11:38:00 GMT -5
There is no "picking". From what i understand they put you on the list as you finish the entire process.. In my last screening I couldnt come in to do my repeat immediately and ended up not making it in  I mean, it holds true to my theory..? This also may be my own personal experience... but not once have I agreed to the DNA sample and as long as I am in one of the first screenings, do the first available physical and clear my labs then I haven't had any issue with "not being allowed to participate"... but hey, maybe ive been lucky? maybe yours could have been some study specific bs? who even knows these days... For the 2nd screening.. I have only been given options if I absolutely cant make the first date, but it seems as though they give the first available date anyway. Hope my two cents help. |
|
|
|
Post by txlabrat on Aug 5, 2018 9:38:26 GMT -5
There is no "picking". From what i understand they put you on the list as you finish the entire process.. In my last screening I couldnt come in to do my repeat immediately and ended up not making it in ![B-|]() I mean, it holds true to my theory..? This also may be my own personal experience... but not once have I agreed to the DNA sample and as long as I am in one of the first screenings, do the first available physical and clear my labs then I haven't had any issue with "not being allowed to participate"... but hey, maybe ive been lucky? maybe yours could have been some study specific bs? who even knows these days... For the 2nd screening.. I have only been given options if I absolutely cant make the first date, but it seems as though they give the first available date anyway. Hope my two cents help. The DNA thing depends on the study. Some studies insist on it otherwise you can;t participate while with others it's completely up to you and if you refuse you can still participate & it does not negatively affect your chances of getting in. |
|
|
|
Post by firsttimer on Sept 6, 2018 11:52:19 GMT -5
There is no "picking". From what i understand they put you on the list as you finish the entire process.. In my last screening I couldnt come in to do my repeat immediately and ended up not making it in ![B-|]() I mean, it holds true to my theory..? This also may be my own personal experience... but not once have I agreed to the DNA sample and as long as I am in one of the first screenings, do the first available physical and clear my labs then I haven't had any issue with "not being allowed to participate"... but hey, maybe ive been lucky? maybe yours could have been some study specific bs? who even knows these days... For the 2nd screening.. I have only been given options if I absolutely cant make the first date, but it seems as though they give the first available date anyway. Hope my two cents help. The DNA thing depends on the study. Some studies insist on it otherwise you can;t participate while with others it's completely up to you and if you refuse you can still participate & it does not negatively affect your chances of getting in. |
|
|
|
Post by firsttimer on Sept 6, 2018 13:56:21 GMT -5
There is no "picking". From what i understand they put you on the list as you finish the entire process.. In my last screening I couldnt come in to do my repeat immediately and ended up not making it in ![B-|]() I mean, it holds true to my theory..? This also may be my own personal experience... but not once have I agreed to the DNA sample and as long as I am in one of the first screenings, do the first available physical and clear my labs then I haven't had any issue with "not being allowed to participate"... but hey, maybe ive been lucky? maybe yours could have been some study specific bs? who even knows these days... For the 2nd screening.. I have only been given options if I absolutely cant make the first date, but it seems as though they give the first available date anyway. Hope my two cents help. The DNA thing depends on the study. Some studies insist on it otherwise you can;t participate while with others it's completely up to you and if you refuse you can still participate & it does not negatively affect your chances of getting in. |
|
I mean it's about as arbitrary as first screen first serve, the way I see it. 
I mean, it holds true to my theory..?