ArticleBMJ open2025
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.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine what drives participation in clinical trials with decentralised elements and to estimate trial participation probabilities for trials with different degrees of decentralisation.
designPatient preference study using a discrete choice experiment.
settingRecruitment in primary, secondary, tertiary care and other settings in the Netherlands (NL), Austria (AT) and Germany (DE).
participantsPeople with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) aged ≥18 years. A total of 787 people (NL n=276, AT n=265, DE n=246) participated in the study.
main outcome measuresPreferences for participation in clinical trials with different options for location and type of contact with the study team, activities to perform by participant, use of digital technologies by participant, number of scheduled contacts, trial duration, known safety and efficacy of the drug.
resultsHow much was known about the safety and efficacy of the drug was the most important element in the decision whether to participate in a clinical trial in all countries. The trial duration, location and type of contact with the study team, and number of scheduled contacts were other important elements. Participation probabilities for hypothetical trial scenarios differed between countries, with the highest rates for a decentralised trial involving video contact (NL: 89%; AT: 99%; DE: 84%).
conclusionsPeople with T2DM prefer to take part in clinical trials with decentralised approaches. Information on preferences can help trialists and protocol developers to design and plan future trials that integrate patients' needs and thus reduce barriers to participation.
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.