ArticleBMJ open2026
How do communication, trust and professional relationships shape decentralised clinical trials? A qualitative interview study of international stakeholders.
Article 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 investigate the impact of decentralisation on communication, trust and professional relationships in the context of clinical trials and to identify practical strategies to support coordination and oversight in decentralised clinical trials (DCTs).
designQualitative interview study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis.
settingInternational decentralised and hybrid clinical trials conducted across multiple therapeutic areas and healthcare contexts.
participantsThirty-one stakeholders involved in the design and delivery of DCTs, including investigators, trial managers, administrators, industry personnel and service vendors.
methodsParticipants were purposively sampled from a series of DCT case studies. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via videoconferencing, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach to identify themes relevant to communication, coordination and trial oversight. Reporting followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines.
resultsThree interrelated themes were identified. First, DCTs operate as complex networks of formal and informal connections through which information, responsibilities and decisions flow. Second, effective communication and trust-building were viewed as central to participant safety, protocol adherence and collaboration, but were more difficult to establish in remote trial contexts. Third, unclear roles and responsibilities contributed to communication delays, coordination challenges and increased operational risk. Participants highlighted the value of proactively clarifying responsibilities and communication pathways during trial set-up and delivery. A social network perspective was identified as a useful heuristic tool for understanding these dynamics.
conclusionsDCTs place increased demands on communication, coordination and relationship-building across distributed teams. Proactively clarifying roles, responsibilities and communication pathways may support more effective trial delivery and oversight. Although focused on DCTs, these findings are relevant to other digitally mediated and multi-stakeholder models of health research delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
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.