ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025
Comparison of Participant and Site Perceptions of Decentralized Clinical Trials in the USA.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- A Multiregional Decentralized Clinical Trial Program to Improve Access.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Decentralized clinical trials: A comprehensive analysis of trends, technologies, and global challenges.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Do people prefer to take part in a clinical trial from home or come to site? A discrete choice experiment in type 2 diabetes mellitus.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To define potential participant and site perceptions of decentralized clinical trials (DCTs). Participants and Methods: Two qualitative surveys were conducted between January 2022 and August 2022 to assess current awareness of, and perceptions about, DCTs. The first survey received 141 responses from staff at our clinical trial sites; the second survey received 481 responses from US-based healthy individuals or those living with an illness. Results: There was a difference in perceptions and willingness between participants and sites toward DCTs. Participants expressed more comfort with hybrid and fully remote trials than did the sites. Site staff were more concerned and less trusting than participants of DCTs; participants' main concerns were regarding practicality and medical safety, whereas the focus for sites was on burden, trust, and security. Both sites and participants expressed confidence in fully remote clinical study activities when they have appropriate support; sites were less tolerant of fully remote clinical study activities if professional support was not provided. Overall, sites were more willing to manage the use of DCT-related technologies than were participants. It is highly likely that participants' willingness to manage DCT technologies relates to the perceived burden of use (ie, willingness decreases as burden or impact on daily life increases). Sponsors, contract research organizations, and DCT vendors generally had positive views on DCTs. However, different stakeholders had different concerns. Conclusion: These results highlight the need for collaborative research and development of DCTs, as well as a clear DCT framework and regulatory guidance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.