Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40070910›Full record

ArticleJournal of nutritional science2025

Participant perspectives about decentralised trial procedures in a remote delivery nutrition intervention trial.

Naomi Davies, Rebecca F Slykerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nutritional science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

2 authors.

Naomi DaviesDepartment of Psychological Medicine, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-8903-2620
Rebecca F SlykermanDepartment of Psychological Medicine, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Participant recruitment and retention are consistently recognised as significant, costly challenges in nutrition intervention trials. Decentralised study procedures address some of the recruitment and retention limitations in traditional trial methodology. Understanding participant perceptions and experiences of decentralised methods in nutrition studies is key to improving trial design and conduct. The aim of this study was to explore participant opinions about remote delivery of a dietary supplement intervention trial. Adults enrolled in a clinical trial of a milk fat globule membrane nutritional supplement for improvement of psychological wellbeing were invited to take part in a post-intervention interview. Interviews were conducted over video conferencing and transcribed. Using a semi-structured interview format six aspects of trial design were discussed: general processes, written instructions, contact throughout the study, self-collection of saliva samples, wearable device use, and cognitive assessment. Thematic analysis derived themes from the data for each of the aspects of trial conduct discussed. Seventy-three participants completed the interview. Interviewees reported a positive overall experience of the remote delivery procedures used. Accessible communication between researchers and participants and clear written instructions were identified as key to participant experience. Recall of instructions and adherence to the nutritional intervention was difficult for some respondents with suggestions made for facilitating this in future remote delivery nutrition studies. Use of wearables, in-home saliva sampling, and self-administered cognitive assessments were feasible and acceptable to most participants. The remote delivery of a nutritional intervention trial, including self-collected biological samples, is feasible and positively viewed by participants.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionResearch DesignSalivaYoung AdultDecentralised trialsMilk fat globule membraneNutrition interventionTrial methods

Identifiers

PMID40070910
PMCPMC11894400

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.