Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34255673›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Stakeholder Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators for the Adoption of Virtual Clinical Trials: Qualitative Study.

Romée Melanie Helena Coert, James Kenneth Timmis, André Boorsma, Wilrike J Pasman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Weaponising microbes for peace.Microbial biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  10. Noise-induced hearing disorders: Clinical and investigational tools.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Romée Melanie Helena Coert *Department of Microbiology and Systems Biology, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Zeist, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7435-5486
James Kenneth Timmis *Faculty of Science, Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7773-0859
André Boorsma *Department of Microbiology and Systems Biology, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Zeist, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6740-7022
Wilrike J Pasman *Department of Microbiology and Systems Biology, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Zeist, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6962-2674

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional clinical trials are essential for generating high-quality evidence by measuring the efficacy of interventions in rigorously controlled clinical environments. However, their execution can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, clinical trials face several logistical challenges regarding the identification, recruitment, and retention of participants; consistent data collection during trials; and adequate patient follow-up. This might lead to inefficient resource utilization. In order to partially address the current problems with conventional clinical trials, there exists the need for innovations. One such innovation is the virtual clinical trial (VCT). VCTs allow for the collection and integration of diverse data from multiple information sources, such as electronic health records, clinical and demographic data, patient-reported outcomes, anthropometric and activity measurements, and data collected by digital biomarkers or (small) samples that participants can collect themselves. Although VCTs have the potential to provide substantial value to clinical research and patients because they can lower clinical trial costs, increase the volume of data collected from patients' daily environment, and reduce the burden of patient participation, so far VCT adoption is not commonplace.

objectiveThis paper aims to better understand the barriers and facilitators to VCT adoption by determining the factors that influence individuals' considerations regarding VCTs from the perspective of various stakeholders.

methodsBased on online semistructured interviews, a qualitative study was conducted with pharmaceutical companies, food and health organizations, and an applied research organization in Europe. Data were thematically analyzed using Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory.

resultsA total of 16 individuals with interest and experience in VCTs were interviewed, including persons from pharmaceutical companies (n=6), food and health organizations (n=4), and a research organization (n=6). Key barriers included a potentially low degree of acceptance by regulatory authorities, technical issues (standardization, validation, and data storage), compliance and adherence, and lack of knowledge or comprehension regarding the opportunities VCTs have to offer. Involvement of regulators in development processes, stakeholder exposure to the results of pilot studies, and clear and simple instructions and assistance for patients were considered key facilitators.

conclusionsCollaboration among all stakeholders in VCT development is crucial to increase knowledge and awareness. Organizations should invest in accurate data collection technologies, and compliance of patients in VCTs needs to be ensured. Multicriteria decision analysis can help determine if a VCT is a preferred option by stakeholders. The findings of this study can be a good starting point to accelerate the development and widespread implementation of VCTs.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchClinical Trials as TopicEuropeHumansadoptionclinical trialsdecentralized clinical trialsdiffusion of innovation theorydigital healthdo-it-yourselfvirtual clinical trialsvirtual healthwearables

Identifiers

PMID34255673
PMCPMC8294122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.