ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2026
Stakeholder-reported perspectives on decentralized clinical trials: A multi-country descriptive survey.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs), which enable trial activities to occur outside traditional clinical trial sites, are reshaping the landscape of clinical research by enabling patient-centric, flexible, and digitally supported trial models. However, widespread adoption faces regulatory, operational, and technological challenges. This study aimed to assess stakeholder perceptions, implementation trends, benefits, and challenges of DCTs across various settings. A cross-sectional, mixed-methods online survey using convenience and snowball recruitment was conducted among 288 stakeholders involved in clinical research, including sponsors, contract research organizations, hospitals/medical research institutions, and technology providers across 38 countries. Findings represent stakeholder-reported experiences rather than population-level adoption. This paper presents quantitative data analyzed using descriptive and exploratory bivariate analyses. Hybrid and full DCT implementation were reported by 144/164 (87.8%) and 63/164 (38.4%) respondents, respectively (independently-reported categories and not mutually exclusive). North America and Asia were the regions most frequently reported by respondents. The most commonly used DCT components were electronic patient-reported outcomes/electronic clinical outcomes assessments [117/161 (72.7%)], remote monitoring [114/161 (70.8%)], and electronic consent [96/161 (59.6%)]. Stakeholders identified key benefits, including improved patient convenience [152/228 (66.7%)] and real-time data collection [136/228 (59.6%)], while key barriers included patient technology literacy [127/228 (55.7%)] and site staff adaptation [123/228 (53.9%)]. Within this sample, hybrid DCTs were selected more frequently on model-effectiveness item; however, the findings do not establish general superiority of one model. Model suitability remains trial-context dependent. Addressing regulatory, infrastructural, and training-related challenges is critical for broader adoption. These findings document stakeholder-reported experience on DCT implementation approaches across diverse healthcare settings.
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.