Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40162176›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Exploring implementation challenges of decentralized clinical trials: A qualitative study of policy stakeholder perspectives in Denmark.

Ida Hestbjerg, Ditte Bonde Stanek, Ulrik Bak Kirk, Christa Thomsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Ida HestbjergResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9621-4703
Ditte Bonde StanekResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ulrik Bak KirkResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.
Christa ThomsenDepartment of Management, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The implementation of decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) has received strong political interest in Denmark. Many policy stakeholders may directly or indirectly influence the implementation at a national strategic level. Diverging interests may drive the implementation process in different directions, which may result in an inefficient and unsustainable process. Objective: The purpose of this study is to explore implementation challenges of DCTs by examining stakeholder interests that emerge in their accounts of the advantages and disadvantages of DCTs. Method: This qualitative study is based on interviews with 15 participants from 12 institutions comprising patient institutions, healthcare institutions, industry institutions, and political institutions. All interviews were conducted between July and December 2023. Additionally, we included 13 policy documents. Interviews and documents were analysed twice. First, we conducted a data-driven thematic analysis. Second, we performed a second-order analysis informed by paradox theory. We used the concept of paradoxical tensions to understand the contradictions that occurred in the stakeholder accounts. Results: To make the implementation of DCTs efficient and sustainable, the interests of stakeholders need to be aligned. However, our study demonstrated that the many different stakeholder interests created a knot of paradoxical tensions, which must first be resolved. Conclusion: Policy stakeholders must collaborate to resolve the paradoxical tensions and align their different interests towards a common objective. The responsibility of the practical implementation process needs to be allocated to one stakeholder or a few stakeholders, who can guide the process.

Indexed as

digital clinical trialdirect-to-patient trialinterviewparadoxical tensionparadox theoryQualitativesensemakingvirtual clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID40162176
PMCPMC11951897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.