ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019
Patient preferences for using mobile technologies in clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- mHealth-Based Self-Management Program for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study.Nursing & health sciences · 2024Trial
- Toward Effective Technology Support in DCTs: Insights from the Trials@Home Proof-of-Concept Trial RADIAL.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Patient engagement and shared decision-making in trial recruitment intervention studies: a systematic review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Do people prefer to take part in a clinical trial from home or come to site? A discrete choice experiment in type 2 diabetes mellitus.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a digital reporting and supporting tool in breast cancer prevention trials (KarmApp).BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Advancing translational science through trial integrity: REDCap-based approaches to mitigating fraud and bias.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Preferences and Attitudes Towards Digital Communication and Symptom Reporting Methods in Clinical Trials.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- What motivates people with type 2 diabetes mellitus to participate in clinical trials from home?Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Real time monitoring of respiratory viral infections in cohort studies using a smartphone app.iScience · 2024Article
- Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Article
- Applying Systems Thinking to Inform Decentralized Clinical Trial Planning and Deployment.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Article
- Mobile Apps for Dietary and Food Timing Assessment: Evaluation for Use in Clinical Research.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Addressing Health Inequities in Digital Clinical Trials: A Review of Challenges and Solutions From the Field of HIV Research.Epidemiologic reviews · 2022Review
- Remote digital smart device follow-up in prospective clinical trials: early insights from ORBITA-2, ORBITA-COSMIC, and ORBITA-STAR.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Development and Evaluation of the Clinical Trial HEalth Knowledge and Beliefs Scale (CHEKS).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Telemedicine and psoriatic arthritis: best practices and considerations for dermatologists and rheumatologists.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Review
- Investigator Experiences Using Mobile Technologies in Clinical Research: Qualitative Descriptive Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The use of mobile technologies to collect participant data in clinical trials offers a number of scientific and logistical advantages. However, little is known about potential research participant preferences about how to incorporate mobile technologies into the design and conduct of a trial. Using a web-based survey which described hypothetical mobile clinical trial and traditional clinical trial scenarios, we explored patients' perceptions of and willingness to participate in mobile and traditional clinical trials, their preferred trial procedures related to the use of mobile technologies, and the preferred attributes of mobile technologies. The majority of survey respondents reported that they would prefer participating in a clinical trial that used mobile technology than a traditional trial that relied on standard in-clinic assessments. They expressed that mobile clinical trials offered greater convenience, a reduction of in-person clinic visits, and greater data collection accuracy. Respondents also reported preferences for the frequency of in-clinic visits during mobile clinical trials, device training and troubleshooting, data privacy and confidentiality, the location of data storage, and user access to data collected by the trial device. As research participants become more involved in capturing their own data to inform trial endpoints, their user-preferences of mobile technology, such as those described here, should be considered in the design and conduct of mobile clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.