ArticleDigital health
Digital tools and self-administered home blood tests: A convergent mixed methods pilot study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dried blood spot sample extraction for metabolomics and proteomics profiling for clinical trials: a descriptive exploratory study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Effect of theBMJ 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital tools and self-administered home blood tests offer a flexible approach to research data collection, biological sample management, and informed consent but require evaluation in relevant study settings. This study explored user experiences with a web-based digital tool for trial management, symptom reporting, and home blood testing. Methods: Forty-three middle-aged participants took part in a 12-week mixed-method study, using digital tools for trial management, self-reported health data, and self-administered glycated hemoglobin A1c home blood tests. Usability was assessed through the validated mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) with additional study-specific items. Every second participant completed a semi-structured interview, analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: The MAUQ responses (scale 1-7) indicated that digital consent (94.7% agreed), and home blood tests (100% agreed) were well-received. However, finding information on digital tools was challenging (52.9% disagreed it was easy), and participants did not perceive the tools highly effective for managing health (52.9% disagreed they were helpful). Interviews with 20 participants reinforced these findings, emphasizing motivation, support, efficient resource use, and the importance of clarity, usability, safety, and security. Conclusion: While self-administered blood tests and online consent were considered user-friendly, improvements are needed in digital tool navigation and information accessibility to enhance usability in decentralized trials, especially for participants who find them difficult or unhelpful.
Indexed as
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.