Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38569710›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Using digital tools in clinical, health and social care research: a mixed-methods study of UK stakeholders.

Sophie Clohessy, Theodoros N Arvanitis, Umer Rashid, Carly Craddock, Mark Evans, Carla T Toro, Mark T Elliott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Sophie ClohessyWMG, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2945-157X
Theodoros N ArvanitisSchool of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5473-135X
Umer RashidWMG, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Carly CraddockNational Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network West Midlands, Birmingham, UK.
Mark EvansNational Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network West Midlands, Birmingham, UK.
Carla T ToroWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6351-1340
Mark T ElliottWMG, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK m.elliott.3@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4000-0198

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic accelerated changes to clinical research methodology, with clinical studies being carried out via online/remote means. This mixed-methods study aimed to identify which digital tools are currently used across all stages of clinical research by stakeholders in clinical, health and social care research and investigate their experience using digital tools.

designTwo online surveys followed by semistructured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. SETTING,

participantsTo explore the digital tools used since the pandemic, survey participants (researchers and related staff (n=41), research and development staff (n=25)), needed to have worked on clinical, health or social care research studies over the past 2 years (2020-2022) in an employing organisation based in the West Midlands region of England (due to funding from a regional clinical research network (CRN)). Survey participants had the opportunity to participate in an online qualitative interview to explore their experiences of digital tools in greater depth (n=8).

resultsSix themes were identified in the qualitative interviews: 'definition of a digital tool in clinical research'; 'impact of the COVID-19 pandemic'; 'perceived benefits/drawbacks of digital tools'; 'selection of a digital tool'; 'barriers and overcoming barriers' and 'future digital tool use'. The context of each theme is discussed, based on the interview results.

conclusionsFindings demonstrate how digital tools are becoming embedded in clinical research, as well as the breadth of tools used across different research stages. The majority of participants viewed the tools positively, noting their ability to enhance research efficiency. Several considerations were highlighted; concerns about digital exclusion; need for collaboration with digital expertise/clinical staff, research on tool effectiveness and recommendations to aid future tool selection. There is a need for the development of resources to help optimise the selection and use of appropriate digital tools for clinical research staff and participants.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsEnglandHumansResearch DesignSocial SupportClinical TrialQualitative ResearchTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38569710
PMCPMC11146398

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.