Trial reportBMJ open2026
Assessment of patient preferences in digital health trials: procedure development and implementation in a preference-based trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and evaluate a standardised, fully automated assessment procedure for patient treatment preferences suitable for use in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with remote or digital health interventions.
designMultiphase developmental study followed by implementation in a fully randomised preference trial (FRPT).
settingUniversity and outpatient cancer care settings in Switzerland; implementation in RCTs with a remote digital health intervention.
participants50 medical students for pilot testing; 11 patients with cancer for qualitative testing; 124 adult patients with cancer experiencing fatigue or sleep problems in an FRPT with a remote digital health intervention. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: feasibility and applicability of a standardised digital preference assessment procedure. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: distribution and strength of treatment preferences, reasons for preference.
resultsA procedure with three items for assessing treatment preferences was developed and refined based on pilot testing, stakeholder meetings and patient interviews. The stepwise procedure ensured that study participants with an initially unclear preference were finally able to report their preference. The majority of students (91.7%) indicated their preference already in the first assessment step. Similar in the RCT phase, 110 of 124 participants (88.7%) indicated their preference in the first step. Preference drivers included interest, perceived ease and conceptual appeal in addition to expected treatment benefits.
conclusionsOur fully automated standardised preference assessment with three items appears feasible in trials with digital health interventions. Future trials with two active treatment conditions should consider implementation of such a preference assessment to evaluate non-specific treatment effects driven by the match of patients' preferences with the respective treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRKS00035596; DRKS00035541; SNCTP000006209.
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.