Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35852933›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Deployment of an End-to-End Remote, Digitalized Clinical Study Protocol in COVID-19: Process Evaluation.

Nicole Zahradka, Juliana Pugmire, Jessie Lever Taylor, Adam Wolfberg, Matt Wilkes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Narrative review of telemedicine applications in decentralized research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

5 authors.

Nicole ZahradkaCurrent Health Inc, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6323-016X
Juliana PugmireCurrent Health Ltd, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0293-3133
Jessie Lever TaylorCurrent Health Inc, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8595-8733
Adam WolfbergCurrent Health Inc, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5717-8702
Matt WilkesCurrent Health Ltd, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9166-7913

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic may accelerate the adoption of digital, decentralized clinical trials. Conceptual recommendations for digitalized and remote clinical studies and technology are available to enable digitalization. Fully remote studies may break down some of the participation barriers in traditional trials. However, they add logistical complexity and offer fewer opportunities to intervene following a technical failure or adverse event.

objectiveOur group designed an end-to-end digitalized clinical study protocol, using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared Current Health (CH) remote monitoring platform to collect symptoms and continuous physiological data of individuals recently infected with COVID-19 in the community. The purpose of this work is to provide a detailed example of an end-to-end digitalized protocol implementation based on conceptual recommendations by describing the study setup in detail, evaluating its performance, and identifying points of success and failure.

methodsPrimary recruitment was via social media and word of mouth. Informed consent was obtained during a virtual appointment, and the CH-monitoring kit was shipped directly to the participants. The wearable continuously recorded pulse rate (PR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO

resultsOf 13 different study advertisements, 5 (38.5%) were live on social media at any one time. In total, 38 eligibility forms were completed, and 19 (50%) respondents met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 9 (47.4%) were contactable and 8 (88.9%) provided informed consent. Deployment times ranged from 22 to 110 hours, and participants set up the equipment and started transmitting vital signs within 7.6 (IQR 6.3-10) hours of delivery. The mean wearable adherence was 70% (SD 19%), and the mean daily survey adherence was 88% (SD 21%) for the 8 participants. Vital signs were in normal ranges during study participation, and symptoms decreased over time.

conclusionsEvaluation of clinical study implementation is important to capture what works and what might need to be modified. A well-calibrated approach to online advertising and enrollment can remove barriers to recruitment and lower costs but remains the most challenging part of research. Equipment was effectively and promptly shipped to participants and removed the risk of illness transmission associated with in-person encounters during a pandemic. Wearable technology incorporating continuous, clinical-grade monitoring offered an unprecedented level of detail and ecological validity. However, study planning, relationship building, and troubleshooting are more complex in the remote setting. The relevance of a study to potential participants remains key to its success.

Indexed as

COVID-19decentralizeddigital divideevaluation studyhealth care costhealth technologyheart rateprimary recruitmentremote consultationresearch designsocial mediatelemedicinevirtual carevirtual clinical trialwearable

Identifiers

PMID35852933
PMCPMC9345299

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.