This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Viewpoints and Perspectives (514) New Methods (944) Electronic/Mobile Data Capture, Internet-based Survey & Research Methodology (832) Innovations in Clinical Trials and Research Data Management (83) Recruitment of Research Participants (296) Participatory Medicine & E-Patients (773) Participatory Design and Participatory Research (329)

Published on in Vol 26 (2024)

This is a member publication of University of Dundee (Jisc)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/47882, first published .
The Digital Platform and Its Emerging Role in Decentralized Clinical Trials

The Digital Platform and Its Emerging Role in Decentralized Clinical Trials

The Digital Platform and Its Emerging Role in Decentralized Clinical Trials

Authors of this article:

Rachel R Copland1 Author Orcid Image ;   Sten Hanke2 Author Orcid Image ;   Amy Rogers1 Author Orcid Image ;   Lampros Mpaltadoros3 Author Orcid Image ;   Ioulietta Lazarou3 Author Orcid Image ;   Alexandra Zeltsi3 Author Orcid Image ;   Spiros Nikolopoulos3 Author Orcid Image ;   Thomas M MacDonald1 Author Orcid Image ;   Isla S Mackenzie1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Viewpoint

    1MEMO Research, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom

    2eHealth, FH Joanneum, Graz, Austria

    3Information Technologies Institute, Centre for Research & Technology Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Corresponding Author:

    Rachel R Copland, BSc

    MEMO Research

    School of Medicine

    University of Dundee

    Ninewells Hospital and Medical School

    Dundee, DD1 9SY

    United Kingdom

    Phone: 44 1382388380

    Email: rcopland001@dundee.ac.uk


    Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are becoming increasingly popular. Digital clinical trial platforms are software environments where users complete designated clinical trial tasks, providing investigators and trial participants with efficient tools to support trial activities and streamline trial processes. In particular, digital platforms with a modular architecture lend themselves to DCTs, where individual trial activities can correspond to specific platform modules. While design features can allow users to customize their platform experience, the real strengths of digital platforms for DCTs are enabling centralized data capture and remote monitoring of trial participants and in using digital technologies to streamline workflows and improve trial management. When selecting a platform for use in a DCT, sponsors and investigators must consider the specific trial requirements. All digital platforms are limited in their functionality and technical capabilities. Integrating additional functional modules into a central platform may solve these challenges, but few commercial platforms are open to integrating third-party components. The lack of common data standardization protocols for clinical trials will likely limit the development of one-size-fits-all digital platforms for DCTs. This viewpoint summarizes the current role of digital platforms in supporting decentralized trial activities, including a discussion of the potential benefits and challenges of digital platforms for investigators and participants. We will highlight the role of the digital platform in the development of DCTs and emphasize where existing technology is functionally limiting. Finally, we will discuss the concept of the ideal fully integrated and unified DCT and the obstacles developers must address before it can be realized.

    J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e47882

    doi:10.2196/47882

    Keywords

    decentralized clinical trials; digital platform; digitalization; clinical trials; mobile phone 


    In the last 2 decades, advances in digital health have given rise to clinical trial designs that are expected to disrupt the conventional clinical trial model [1-10]. Conventional clinical trials often depend on frequent in-person site visits, and are therefore limited to individuals who can easily access trial sites. The decentralized clinical trial (DCT), however, allows individuals to take part in research regardless of their geographical proximity to the trial site [11,12]. Moving trial activities away from sites and into participant homes or other local settings can also make trials less burdensome for participants [13].

    DCTs are often, but not exclusively, facilitated by technology. Participants can be recruited through web-based advertising campaigns, receive study medications directly to their homes, self-report outcomes through smartphone apps, attend trial visits at home through videoconferencing software, and be monitored remotely with interconnected wearable devices [14-23]. Sponsors increasingly use these technologies as the pharmaceutical industry shifts toward using more decentralized or hybrid [24] methods [1,2]. To fully harness the benefits of this shift toward decentralization, we recommend the adoption of unified, integrated, and DCT-specific digital platforms.

    A widely agreed definition of digital platforms does not yet exist; in this paper, we define them as software environments that facilitate the completion of clinical trial tasks. Digital platforms, hosted locally or on remote (cloud-based) servers, can also facilitate centralized data monitoring and oversight of trial activity, and typically adopt a modular architecture. A unified platform is one where disparate systems and modules centralize (or unify) to create a seamless user interface by linking systems to allow uninterrupted data flow. DCTs often incorporate several modes of data collection (eg, devices, electronic participant reported outcomes) from disparate sources. Unifying these data in a single platform avoids data sprawl while providing the opportunity for richer data insights and streamlined workflows [25,26]. The Eureka digital platform, for example, was developed by the University of California and has been used in several DCTs. The Eureka platform allows participants to consent, upload data, and attend remote trial visits. Meanwhile, trial staff can access real-time study progress data, generate reports, and collect analysis-ready data sets [27]. Eureka permits the customization of user interfaces with a granular role-based permissions system. Platforms like Eureka can be tailored to multiple users, including trial participants, researchers, sponsors, and third-party vendors, and are accessible on any suitable internet-connected device.

    Although the use of digital platforms in DCTs is relatively common [27-34], existing platforms are not without limitations. Lack of interoperability and unclear data standardization protocols are known challenges to building unified systems [35-37]. Many proprietary digital platforms offer modules to support common DCT trial activities such as electronic data capture (EDC), drug dispensing, or remote visits. However, not all planned DCT activities may be available in a single proprietary system. To overcome this limitation, 1 option would be to integrate a third-party software solution that provides the necessary functionality often not permitted on proprietary systems. Even where third-party integration is allowed, subsequent software updates may be problematic [38]. Lack of data standardization leads to platforms and modules lacking interoperability, and custom implementations increase build complexity, extending timelines, and adding to costs.

    With hybrid and decentralized study designs becoming more popular, the demand for innovative systems to support these trials is likely to grow; this will result in technology partners becoming important stakeholders in the success of DCTs, particularly for those studies requiring custom builds. The trend toward decentralization, however, has highlighted discordance between trialists and technology partners. Where technology partners specialize in full-stack development and user experience design, they are not experts on clinical trials. Likewise, trialists are adept at the intricacies of the clinical trial and DCT landscape, but they may harbor unrealistic expectations of system capabilities. This lack of shared understanding between stakeholders slows progress [39-41], and literature discussing platforms from both technical and clinical perspectives is scarce. We have attempted to bridge this gap in this viewpoint. We examine how digital platforms and DCTs have developed and highlight the advantages of a digital platform approach. We also discuss where user engagement in platform design can strengthen the DCT model. Finally, we demonstrate the key challenges of deploying a unified, modular, and fully-integrated platform in terms of technical limitations and data standardization.


    Early digital solutions for clinical trials took many forms, including EDC programs and software that helped streamline trial management. The INVEST trial compared treatment strategies for the treatment of hypertension in individuals with coronary artery disease [42,43]. The trial began in 1997 and was conducted using an internet-based software tool akin to a modern randomization and trial supply management system. Hosted on a Netscape Enterprise Server, the tool incorporated a database for real-time collection, verification, and validation of participant data at study visits. In the same year, Schoichet et al [44] described a communications network set up initially for the COMET trial, which investigated the efficacy of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment. The network included tools for data transfer, randomization and trial supply management activities, communications protocols, and an information access system for monitoring the trial status. The infrastructure was developed from preexisting local area networks, and frame relays were established between the participating organizations. An internal interactive voice response system was deployed to conduct and monitor tasks relating to drug supply management, collecting data in real-time. To monitor study activities, a platform was built on Lotus Notes (Lotus Development Corporation) with separate modules for enrollment of participants, trial monitoring, adverse event reporting, and tracking of case report forms.

    Many modern platform interfaces, derived from early EDC systems, include participant-facing electronic diaries and web-based questionnaires. These have been used successfully in several early DCTs [45-47], and remain popular [32,48,49]. EDC platforms later expanded their capabilities beyond remote data capture to include other DCT elements, such as electronic consenting and telemedicine. Various DCTs have used the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Vanderbilt University) [50,51] electronic data capture platform to allow participants to upload trial data [52-54]. Other DCTs have used ResearchKit (Apple Inc.) [55], an open-source framework, to create participant platforms for users to consent, upload data, and view study results through a study-specific app [16,56,57].

    There are several technology vendors offering ready-to-deploy, customizable, and often modular, platforms for DCTs. Companies such as IQVIA [58]; Medable [59]; Castor [60]; THREAD [61]; ObvioHealth [62]; Science37 [63]; Cognizant [64]; and AiCure [65], among others, offer digital platforms. For example, the RADIAL trial conducted by Trials@Home [66] is supported by eClinicalHealth’s Clinpal [67] digital platform. While conducting a recent systematic review of methods used to conduct DCTs, we found that, of 45 included trials, 31 managed their trials using a digital platform of some kind [24].


    The benefits of using digital platforms for DCTs extend to both participants and researchers. Digital platforms allow participants to be monitored remotely, which is associated with improved self-management of conditions and better clinical outcomes for participants [68-70]. Meanwhile, remote monitoring gives researchers greater insight into the day-to-day variability of disease activity and its wider impact [71,72]. Platforms with electronic participant reported outcome modules can increase participant satisfaction, improve data quality, reduce costs, and improve response rates [73-75]. There are also benefits associated with participants using their own devices to access study platforms. Directly uploading one’s information to the platform (ie, active data collection) offers participants greater flexibility and enables “on the go” or real-time reporting. On the other hand, data collected passively through devices, such as geolocation or screen interactions, provide researchers with greater insight into real-world behavior. The Brighten (Bridging Research Innovations for Greater Health in Technology, Emotion, and Neuroscience) DCTs, for example, actively and passively collected data to better understand the behaviors of participants with depression [76]. This combination of active and passive data collection could allow researchers to better monitor changes in behavior and, in theory, intervene sooner. DCTs with little to no participant-study team interaction may be experienced as disengaging by participants, but platform technologies can address these challenges. Push notifications, alerts, and reminders received through devices, phones, or personal computers have been cited as facilitators of engagement [77], and research has shown how these features have encouraged participants to complete study tasks and promote the use of study apps [78,79]. Research increasingly shows participants value having access to their own data [41,80], and displaying meaningful insights through participant dashboards could improve participant satisfaction. Another strategy for increasing engagement and promoting product longevity that is frequently adopted in commercial settings is gamification. Gamification incorporates game design elements in nongame contexts [81] to encourage reward-seeking behavior through incentives, such as unlocking new levels, receiving badges, or collecting points [82]. This strategy of promoting engagement has proved effective in several trials [83-88] and could be used to enhance both trial and platform engagement.

    Digital platforms can be integrated with videoconferencing software, which allows participants to attend trial visits remotely [49,89,90]. Participant satisfaction with video visits is generally high, even when visits are completed on smartphones [91]. For instance, a platform could offer a web-based booking system, giving participants flexibility when scheduling follow-up visits. Further, integrating calendar application programming interfaces with the platform would allow visits to be added to the participant’s existing email or device calendars, which could be accompanied by pop-ups or reminders, potentially reducing missed or forgotten appointments. A combination of the tools mentioned above could generate a platform that promotes participant engagement with the trial while also allowing investigators to supervise trial progress and participant safety.

    Conducting DCTs through digital platforms can also result in improved data integrity; this can be accomplished through platforms with data visualization dashboards, data tables, activity and audit logs, and real-time error flags, with unauthorized data edits restricted through access controls. Currently, most data visualizations and dashboards are implemented with web access in JavaScript or similar tools. More modern visualizations incorporate business intelligence (BI) approaches where different data sources can be combined and structured for quick visualization. BI tools can further help to find patterns and correlations between data. Data traceability can be achieved with rules-based sanity tests, semiautomated validation, and automated report generation [92]. Research increasingly supports the adoption of blockchain technology in clinical trials, with advocates suggesting that an immutable ledger using smart contracts would improve data integrity, accountability, and traceability [93-96]. For example, Liang et al [97], demonstrated a system whereby users controlled data access and protected privacy through blockchain technology and Intel software guard extensions. Data integrity and accountability were ensured by hashing protected personal health data and data access records and anchoring them to a long-lasting but secure ledger with platform dependencies. Building digital platforms on blockchain technology and other similar technological solutions warrants further exploration but could have significant implications for improving data integrity and security in DCTs.


    Overview

    Maintaining digital security and compliance with local legislation and data standards are paramount to the success of DCTs, and digital platforms are not exempt from potential risks. While an unstable internet connection presents a source of weakness for data sharing, personal devices can also fall victim to malware or expose personal information if lost or stolen. As more trials embrace platform technologies, data security and governance risks will continue to grow [98]. Security and governance teams must, therefore, be established both at the Sponsor site and among all trial partners to scan for malware, apply patches to applications, and keep study personnel and participants informed on how to protect their data. As with conventional clinical trial approaches, DCTs are vulnerable to nonadherence and attrition. Learnings from mHealth studies show that users lose momentum with app use after a goal has been achieved and nothing new can be gained [99], which could have consequences for trials using digital platforms. Following best practice guidelines for DCTs, like choosing a research question of high perceived value [13] or offering flexibility in the DCT approach [100], may ameliorate some of these challenges, but research in this area is limited.

    Finally, population demographics and individual preferences can impact how a user interacts with digital platforms, and anticipating these factors in advance can minimize later delays. For example, lack of digital literacy, inexperience with trial technology, insufficient digital infrastructure, and lack of confidence using devices are frequently cited reasons for withdrawal in app-based studies [101,102]. Embedding customization features into platforms may address this and encourage use, as has been demonstrated with mHealth applications [103-108]. Additionally, customization such as enlarged text functionality or text-to-speech embedded software would accommodate those with accessibility needs. Designing straightforward and simple user interfaces can avoid “overwhelm” and encourage regular use [99,109], and being able to access the platform on multiple devices allows participants to prioritize familiar devices. Age-related differences can influence how a user perceives the graphical user interface of the platform. Older adults perform better with classic, skeuomorphic interfaces (mimicking real-world objects), but younger adults may prefer the minimalism of flat design (clean and straightforward) [110]. Busy or cluttered platforms risk excluding individuals with dyslexia or visual impairments [111], potentially discouraging use [41,77], and improper use of color hues risks excluding color-blind individuals [112,113]. Further, research has shown that participants value simple interfaces [41,80] in digitally enabled DCTs. Additionally, users have preexisting expectations of platform functionality [114], (eg, “hamburger icons” denoting navigation menus), which should be considered in platform design. Typography, color, formatting, and layout can also influence user experience [115-118].

    The Challenge of Fully Integrated, Unified Digital Platforms

    Many commercially available platform solutions are not yet open for integrating third-party components or are limited in their service provision and functionalities. Using existing components and already established solutions typically still results in a lack of interoperability, dependence on functionalities, and vendor lock-in. The future of digital platform technology, therefore, would look toward developing an end-to-end platform applying international standards where, if desired, users can integrate individual modules from different vendors.

    Given the relative novelty of fully integrated, unified digital platforms for DCTs, specific interoperability standards for clinical trial platforms are not yet available. Nevertheless, commonly recommended standards are broadly applicable. We have summarized some of these standards in Table 1. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society [119] recommends interoperability standards in health care. These standards describe data sharing and offer recommendations regarding privacy and security. They define levels of interoperability, including technical and semantic. Future digital components used in DCTs should adapt and integrate these standards and recommendations for interoperability and modularity. As more data standardization processes become available, better ways to communicate and analyze data in trial platforms will become apparent [120].

    Figure 1 provides a reference architecture of components typically comprising a DCT. Architectures provide an abstract view of systems and can be used to manage communications and decisions. Domain, application, and site requirements lead to domain reference architectures which can be further refined to application architectures. These, in turn, define the final implementation architecture. The architecture comprising a digital platform is technically complex, and a further layer of complexity is added when integrating modules from external providers. Developing such a platform would first require defined system requirements (functional and nonfunctional), user requirements (user point of view, user goals, and user input and output), and business requirements (sponsor point of view, scope of trial, and business objectives). Within our reference model, data exists in a common format and the use of preexisting standards guarantees interoperability, but this exhibits a best-case scenario. Lack of interoperability represents a significant hurdle to the development of unified digital platforms, and the lack of specific data standardization processes may prevent innovation in this technology from being explored. Moreover, given the proprietary nature of many of the available commercial platforms, specific literature on integrations, architectures, data standardization, and general deployment strategies is restricted or unavailable. Despite these challenges, the development of a fully-integrated digital platform with in-built customization and tailoring is likely to provide suppliers with a competitive advantage in the growing DCT landscape.

    Table 1. Existing data standardization processes and examples illustrating how these standards can be implemented in digital platform solutions.
    PublisherData standardApplicable use in digital platforms
    HL7aFHIRbProfile released to store and transmit health data in a standardized, easy, and accessible format [121,122]. Digital platforms would benefit from using international standards for health data exchange partially already used in hospital information systems. HL2 version 3 promotes clinical document architecture which can be used to save clinical reports in a standardized form.
    CDISCcPRMdProvides a standard for planning and designing a research protocol with focus on study characteristics such as study design, eligibility criteria, and requirements from ClinicalTrials.gov, WHOe, and EudraCT registries. PRM assists in automating case report form creation and EHRf configuration to support clinical research and data sharing.
    CDISCCDASHgEstablishes a standardized way to collect data consistently across studies and sponsors so that data collection formats and structures provide clear traceability of submission data into SDTMh, delivering more transparency to regulators and others conducting data review.
    CDISCAdaMiDefines dataset and metadata standards that support efficient generation, replication, and review of clinical trial statistical analyses, and traceability among analyses results, analyses data, and data represented in the SDTM [123]. Required standard for data submission to the FDAj and Japan’s PMDAk.
    GS1lGS1 Global Data Model Process automation in DCTsm. GS1 in health care is a global, voluntary group for all participants in the health care supply chain, which includes manufacturers, distributors, health care services, solution providers, regulators, and associations. A clinical trial electronic messaging standard implementation guide is provided [121].

    aHL7: Health Level 7.

    bFHIR: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources.

    cCDISC: Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium.

    dPRM: Protocol Representation Model.

    eWHO: World Health Organization.

    fEHR: electronic health record.

    gCDASH: Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonization.

    hSDTM: Study Data Tabulation Model.

    iADaM: Analysis Data Model.

    jFDA: United States Food and Drug Administration.

    kPMDA: Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency.

    lGS1: Global Standards 1.

    mDCT: decentralized clinical trial.

    ‎
    Figure 1. A reference architecture for components typically involved in decentralized clinical trials for data sharing and storage between participants’ homes and study centers. Data exists in a common format with preexisting standards to guarantee interoperability and modularity. Figure adapted with permission from Trials@Home Deliverable 2.4 [124]. CDISC: Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; FHIR: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources; GCP: good clinical practice; GS1: Global Standards 1; HIS: hospital information system; HL7: Health Level 7; IHE: Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise; REST: representational state transfer; SOP: standard operating procedure; WHO: World Health Organization.

    The growing popularity of DCTs necessitates an increasing reliance on technology. We believe the benefits of such technologies will be best realized through unified digital platforms. Platform approaches have historically been used to support DCTs, and the technology underpinning these platforms continues to develop. Tools for promoting trial engagement, maintaining investigator oversight, and improving data integrity can all be facilitated through digital platforms, and careful design planning helps accommodate the various needs of platform users. Digital platforms will likely evolve into singular, unified platforms that integrate external modules to generate a fully customizable system. However, challenges with poor interoperability and lack of data standards must first be addressed. Regardless of the current state of digital platforms for DCTs, the relationship between technology and trial innovation is likely to strengthen. Therefore, developing and implementing new DCT tools and solutions that support all stakeholders will require clinical and technical expertise.

    Acknowledgments

    The Trials@Home project has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (grant agreement 831458). This joint undertaking received support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. The research leading to these results was conducted as part of the Trials@Home consortium. This paper only reflects the personal views of the stated authors. No generative artificial intelligence was used in any portion of manuscript writing.

    Authors' Contributions

    Manuscript conceptualization is credited to RC. RC and SH wrote the original draft of the manuscript. All authors were involved in reviewing and editing the final manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    ISM reports research grants from Menarini, EMA, Sanofi, HDR UK, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA), and Innovative Medicines Initiative; institutional consultancy income from AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work; personal income from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Amarin, Novartis and Novo Nordisk outside of the submitted work; and vice-chairmanship of a trial steering committee for a trial funded by Novo Nordisk. TMM reports grants from the British Heart Foundation, Menarini/Ipsen/Teijin, NIHR HTA, and MSD outside of the submitted work; personal income for consultancy from Novartis and AstraZeneca, and honorarium from Viatris outside of the submitted work; membership of independent data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk and an NIHR trial; and is a trustee of the Scottish Heart Arterial Risk Prevention Society. AR reports unpaid membership of an NIHR trial steering committee. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

    1. Marquis-Gravel G, Roe MT, Turakhia MP, Boden W, Temple R, Sharma A, et al. Technology-enabled clinical trials: transforming medical evidence generation. Circulation. 2019;140(17):1426-1436. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Rosa C, Campbell ANC, Miele GM, Brunner M, Winstanley EL. Using e-technologies in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45:41-54. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Steinhubl SR, McGovern P, Dylan J, Topol EJ. The digitised clinical trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10108):2135. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Intelligent clinical trials: transforming through AI-enabled engagement. Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions. 2020. URL: https:/​/www2.​deloitte.com/​content/​dam/​insights/​us/​articles/​22934_intelligent-clinical-trials/​DI_Intelligent-clinical-trials.​pdf [accessed 2024-05-14]
    5. Dorsey ER, Darwin KC, Mohammed S, Donohue S, Tethal A, Achey MA, et al. Virtual research visits and direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Parkinson's disease. Digit Health. 2015;1:2055207615592998. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Dorsey ER, Wagner JD, Bull MT, Rizzieri A, Grischkan J, Achey MA, et al. Feasibility of virtual research visits in Fox Trial Finder. J Parkinsons Dis. 2015;5(3):505-515. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Hirsch IB, Martinez J, Dorsey ER, Finken G, Fleming A, Gropp C, et al. Incorporating site-less clinical trials into drug development: a framework for action. Clin Ther. 2017;39(5):1064-1076. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Jadhav S. Virtual clinical trials: the future of patient engagement? Applied Clinical Trials. 2016. URL: https://www.appli edclinicaltrialsonline.com/view/virtual-clinical-trials-future-patient-engagement [accessed 2024-05-14]
    9. Rutkove SB, Qi K, Shelton K, Liss J, Berisha V, Shefner JM. ALS longitudinal studies with frequent data collection at home: study design and baseline data. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2019;20(1-2):61-67. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Vogel MME, Combs SE, Kessel KA. mHealth and application technology supporting clinical trials: today's limitations and future perspective of smartRCTs. Front Oncol. 2017;7:37. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Rogers A, Copland R, Houston Pichardo S, Harwood K, Müller-Vössing C, Naster P, et al. Glossary of terms and definitions used. Trials@Home. 2020. URL: https://trialsathome.com/glossary/ [accessed 2024-05-14]
    12. Decentralized clinical trials for drugs, biological products, and devices: guidance for industry, investigators, and other stakeholders. Food and Drug Administration. 2023. URL: https://www.fda.gov/media/167696/download [accessed 2024-05-14]
    13. Rogers A, Mackenzie I, Hawkins K, Work Package 1 BEST Team of the Trials@Home Project. First set of recommendations for RDCTs (to be implemented in the pan-EU pilot RDCT). Trials@Home. 2020. URL: https://trialsathome.com/first-set-of -recommendations-for-rdcts-d1-1/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    14. Steinhubl SR, Waalen J, Edwards AM, Ariniello LM, Mehta RR, Ebner GS, et al. Effect of a home-based wearable continuous ECG monitoring patch on detection of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation: the mSToPS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(2):146-155. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Carpinella I, Cattaneo D, Bonora G, Bowman T, Martina L, Montesano A, et al. Wearable sensor-based biofeedback training for balance and gait in Parkinson disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(4):622-630.e3. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Perez MV, Mahaffey KW, Hedlin H, Rumsfeld JS, Garcia A, Ferris T, et al. Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(20):1909-1917. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Bergenstal RM, Peyrot M, Dreon DM, Aroda VR, Bailey TS, Brazg RL, et al. Implementation of basal-bolus therapy in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial comparing bolus insulin delivery using an insulin patch with an insulin pen. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(5):273-285. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Wisk LE, Nelson EB, Magane KM, Weitzman ER. Clinical trial recruitment and retention of college students with type 1 diabetes via social media: an implementation case study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(3):445-456. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Bailey JV, Pavlou M, Copas A, McCarthy O, Carswell K, Rait G, et al. The Sexunzipped trial: optimizing the design of online randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(12):e278. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Parker JN, Hunter AS, Bauermeister JA, Bonar EE, Carrico A, Stephenson R. Comparing social media and in-person recruitment: lessons learned from recruiting substance-using, sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults for a randomized control trial. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021;7(12):e31657. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Durkalski V, Zhao W, Dillon C, Kim J. A web-based clinical trial management system for a sham-controlled multicenter clinical trial in depression. Clin Trials. 2010;7(2):174-182. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Cramon P, Rasmussen ÅK, Bonnema SJ, Bjorner JB, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Groenvold M, et al. Development and implementation of PROgmatic: a clinical trial management system for pragmatic multi-centre trials, optimised for electronic data capture and patient-reported outcomes. Clin Trials. 2014;11(3):344-354. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Gupta A, Calfas KJ, Marshall SJ, Robinson TN, Rock CL, Huang JS, et al. Clinical trial management of participant recruitment, enrollment, engagement, and retention in the SMART study using a marketing and information technology (MARKIT) model. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;42:185-195. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Rogers A, De Paoli G, Subbarayan S, Copland R, Harwood K, Coyle J, et al. A systematic review of methods used to conduct decentralised clinical trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;88(6):2843-2862. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Vesset D, Olofson CW. Unified data cloud for simplicity and intelligence to drive better business outcomes. International Data Corporation. 2022. URL: https:/​/services.​google.com/​fh/​files/​misc/​idc_whitepaper_unified_data_cloud_for_simplicity _and_intelligence.​pdf [accessed 2024-05-14]
    26. Kashyap D. Streamlining clinical trials: the impact of unified management platforms on drug development. Cloudbyz. 2023. URL: https:/​/www.​cloudbyz.com/​resources/​clinical-operations/​streamlining-clinical-trials-the-impact-of-unified- management-platforms-on-drug-development/​ [accessed 2024-05-14]
    27. Peyser ND, Marcus GM, Beatty AL, Olgin JE, Pletcher MJ. Digital platforms for clinical trials: the Eureka experience. Contemp Clin Trials. 2022;115:106710. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. van Dam J, Omondi Onyango K, Midamba B, Groosman N, Hooper N, Spector J, et al. Open-source mobile digital platform for clinical trial data collection in low-resource settings. BMJ Innov. 2017;3(1):26-31. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Dockendorf MF, Hansen BJ, Bateman KP, Moyer M, Shah JK, Shipley LA. Digitally enabled, patient-centric clinical trials: shifting the drug development paradigm. Clin Transl Sci. 2021;14(2):445-459. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Doyle J, Murphy E, Gavin S, Pascale A, Deparis S, Tommasi P, et al. A digital platform to support self-management of multiple chronic conditions (ProACT): findings in relation to engagement during a one-year proof-of-concept trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(12):e22672. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Spertus JA, Birmingham MC, Nassif M, Damaraju CV, Abbate A, Butler J, et al. The SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin in heart failure: the CHIEF-HF remote, patient-centered randomized trial. Nat Med. 2022;28(4):809-813. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Tempini N, Teira D. Is the genie out of the bottle? Digital platforms and the future of clinical trials. Econ Soc. 2019;48(1):77-106. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    33. Triebell E. Enhancing decentralized clinical trials through advanced digital platforms. Health Cloud Solutions. 2022. URL: https:/​/healthcloudsolutions.​org/​enhancing-decentralized-clinical-trials-through-advanced-digital-platforms [accessed 2023-04-06]
    34. Harrington M. Identifying integrated digital platforms designed for a decentralized future. Applied Clinical Trials. 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/​view/​identifying-integrated-digital-platforms-designed-for-a-decen tralized-future [accessed 2023-04-06]
    35. Sadeghi M, Carenini A, Corcho O, Rossi M, Santoro R, Vogelsang A. Interoperability of heterogeneous systems of systems: from requirements to a reference architecture. J Supercomput. 2023;80(7):8954-8987. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    36. Torab-Miandoab A, Samad-Soltani T, Jodati A, Rezaei-Hachesu P. Interoperability of heterogeneous health information systems: a systematic literature review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023;23(1):18. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Dudzinski MA, Garty D. A guide for establishing and governing data collection standards. Journal for Clinical Studies. 2024:20-23. [FREE Full text]
    38. Nosheen M, Syed Z. An integration model resolving 3rd party source code/component incorporation issues during open source software development. Int Arab J E Technol. 2014;3(3):146-154. [FREE Full text]
    39. Steinhubl SR, Wolff-Hughes D, Nilsen W, Iturriaga E, Califf RM. Digital clinical trials: creating a vision for the future. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:126. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Moorthy V, Abubakar I, Qadri F, Ogutu B, Zhang W, Reeder J, et al. The future of the global clinical trial ecosystem: a vision from the first WHO Global Clinical Trials Forum. Lancet. 2024;403(10422):124-126. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Coyle J, Rogers A, Copland R, De Paoli G, MacDonald T, Mackenzie IS, et al. Trials@Home Consortium. Learning from remote decentralised clinical trial experiences: a qualitative analysis of interviews with trial personnel, patient representatives and other stakeholders. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;88(3):1031-1042. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Pepine CJ, Handberg-Thurmond E, Marks RG, Conlon M, Cooper-DeHoff R, Volkers P, et al. Rationale and design of the International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril Study (INVEST): an internet-based randomized trial in coronary artery disease patients with hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32(5):1228-1237. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, Marks RG, Kowey P, Messerli FH, et al. A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(21):2805-2816. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Schoichet S, Creasey G, Kasay S. A systems infrastructure for sponsor/CRO collaboration on international clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 1998;32(1):155-161. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    45. McAlindon T, Formica M, LaValley M, Lehmer M, Kabbara K. Effectiveness of glucosamine for symptoms of knee osteoarthritis: results from an internet-based randomized double-blind controlled trial. Am J Med. 2004;117(9):643-649. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Jacobs BP, Bent S, Tice JA, Blackwell T, Cummings SR. An internet-based randomized, placebo-controlled trial of kava and valerian for anxiety and insomnia. Medicine. 2005;84(4):197-207. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Eilenberg KL, Hoover AM, Rutherford ML, Melfi CA, Segal S. From informed consent through database lock: an interactive clinical trial conducted using the internet. Drug Inf J. 2004;38(3):239-251. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    48. Gelfand AA, Qubty W, Patniyot I, Grimes B, Pletcher MJ, Goadsby PJ, et al. Home-based trials in adolescent migraine: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74(6):744-745. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Olden M, Wyka K, Cukor J, Peskin M, Altemus M, Lee FS, et al. Pilot study of a telehealth-delivered medication-augmented exposure therapy protocol for PTSD. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2017;205(2):154-160. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. REDCap. Vanderbilt University. URL: https://www.project-redcap.org/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    51. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Higgins SB, Jiang K, Plummer WD, Edens TR, Stroud MJ, Swindell BB, et al. Pivot/remote: a distributed database for remote data entry in multi-center clinical trials. Medinfo. 1995;8:1097. [Medline]
    53. Kianersi S, Luetke M, Ludema C, Valenzuela A, Rosenberg M. Use of research electronic data capture (REDCap) in a COVID-19 randomized controlled trial: a practical example. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):175. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Steger FL, Donnelly JE, Hull HR, Li X, Hu J, Sullivan DK. Intermittent and continuous energy restriction result in similar weight loss, weight loss maintenance, and body composition changes in a 6 month randomized pilot study. Clin Obes. 2021;11(2):e12430. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. ResearchKit. Apple Inc. URL: https://researchkit.org/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    56. Crouthamel M, Quattrocchi E, Watts S, Wang S, Berry P, Garcia-Gancedo L, et al. Using a ResearchKit smartphone app to collect rheumatoid arthritis symptoms from real-world participants: feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(9):e177. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Radin JM, Steinhubl SR, Su AI, Bhargava H, Greenberg B, Bot BM, et al. The healthy pregnancy research program: transforming pregnancy research through a ResearchKit app. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:45. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. IQVIA. URL: https://www.iqvia.com/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    59. Medable. URL: https://www.medable.com/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    60. Castor. URL: https://www.castoredc.com/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    61. THREAD. URL: https://www.threadresearch.com/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    62. ObvioHealth. URL: https://www.obviohealth.com/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    63. Science 37. URL: https://www.science37.com/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    64. Cognizant. URL: https://www.cognizant.com/uk/en [accessed 2023-04-06]
    65. AiCure. URL: https://aicure.com/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    66. Trials@Home. URL: https://trialsathome.com/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    67. Clinpal. URL: https://clinpal.com/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    68. Farias FAC, Dagostini CM, Bicca YA, Falavigna VF, Falavigna A. Remote patient monitoring: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health. 2020;26(5):576-583. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Su D, Michaud TL, Estabrooks P, Schwab RJ, Eiland LA, Hansen G, et al. Diabetes management through remote patient monitoring: the importance of patient activation and engagement with the technology. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(10):952-959. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Wintrich J, Pavlicek V, Brachmann J, Bosch R, Butter C, Oswald H, et al. Remote monitoring with appropriate reaction to alerts was associated with improved outcomes in chronic heart failure: results from the OptiLink HF study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021;14(1):e008693. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Anguera JA, Jordan JT, Castaneda D, Gazzaley A, Areán PA. Conducting a fully mobile and randomised clinical trial for depression: access, engagement and expense. BMJ Innov. 2016;2(1):14-21. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Omberg L, Neto EC, Perumal TM, Pratap A, Tediarjo A, Adams J, et al. Remote smartphone monitoring of Parkinson's disease and individual response to therapy. Nat Biotechnol. 2022;40(4):480-487. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Meirte J, Hellemans N, Anthonissen M, Denteneer L, Maertens K, Moortgat P, et al. Benefits and disadvantages of electronic patient-reported outcome measures: systematic review. JMIR Perioper Med. 2020;3(1):e15588. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Zylla DM, Gilmore GE, Steele GL, Eklund JP, Wood CM, Stover AM, et al. Collection of electronic patient-reported symptoms in patients with advanced cancer using Epic MyChart surveys. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(7):3153-3163. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Coons SJ, Eremenco S, Lundy JJ, O'Donohoe P, O'Gorman H, Malizia W. Capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data electronically: the past, present, and promise of ePRO measurement in clinical trials. Patient. 2015;8(4):301-309. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Pratap A, Homiar A, Waninger L, Herd C, Suver C, Volponi J, et al. Real-world behavioral dataset from two fully remote smartphone-based randomized clinical trials for depression. Sci Data. 2022;9(1):522. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Oakley-Girvan I, Yunis R, Longmire M, Ouillon JS. What works best to engage participants in mobile app interventions and e-Health: a scoping review. Telemed J E Health. 2022;28(6):768-780. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Sandborg J, Henriksson P, Larsen E, Lindqvist AK, Rutberg S, Söderström E, et al. Participants' engagement and satisfaction with a smartphone app intended to support healthy weight gain, diet, and physical activity during pregnancy: qualitative study within the HealthyMoms trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(3):e26159. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Eliasen A, Abildtoft MK, Krogh NS, Rechnitzer C, Brok JS, Mathiasen R, et al. Smartphone app to self-monitor nausea during pediatric chemotherapy treatment: user-centered design process. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(7):e18564. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Coyle J, Rogers A, Copland R, De Paoli G, MacDonald TM, Mackenzie IS, et al. Trials@Home Consortium. A secondary qualitative analysis of stakeholder views about participant recruitment, retention, and adherence in decentralised clinical trials (DCTs). Trials. 2022;23(1):614. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". Tampere, Finland. Association for Computing Machinery; 2011. Presented at: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments; 2011:9-15; New York, NY, United States. URL: https:/​/www.​researchgate.net/​publication/​230854710_From_Game_Design_Elements_to_Gamefulness_Defining_Gamification [CrossRef]
    82. Sailer M, Hense JU, Mayr SK, Mandl H. How gamification motivates: an experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;69:371-380. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    83. Pramana G, Parmanto B, Lomas J, Lindhiem O, Kendall PC, Silk J. Using mobile health gamification to facilitate cognitive behavioral therapy skills practice in child anxiety treatment: open clinical trial. JMIR Serious Games. 2018;6(2):e9. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Waddell KJ, Patel MS, Clark K, Harrington TO, Greysen SR. Effect of gamification with social incentives on daily steps after stroke: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2022;79(5):528-530. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    85. Patel MS, Small DS, Harrison JD, Fortunato MP, Oon AL, Rareshide CAL, et al. Effectiveness of behaviorally designed gamification interventions with social incentives for increasing physical activity among overweight and obese adults across the United States: the STEP UP randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(12):1624-1632. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Allam A, Kostova Z, Nakamoto K, Schulz PJ. The effect of social support features and gamification on a web-based intervention for rheumatoid arthritis patients: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(1):e14. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Lukas CA, Eskofier B, Berking M. A gamified smartphone-based intervention for depression: randomized controlled pilot trial. JMIR Ment Health. 2021;8(7):e16643. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Looyestyn J, Kernot J, Boshoff K, Ryan J, Edney S, Maher C. Does gamification increase engagement with online programs? A systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173403. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Blake K, Holbrook JT, Antal H, Shade D, Bunnell HT, McCahan SM, et al. Use of mobile devices and the internet for multimedia informed consent delivery and data entry in a pediatric asthma trial: study design and rationale. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;42:105-118. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Tarolli C, Andrzejewski K, Bull M, Goldenthal S, O’Brien M, Simuni T, et al. Virtual research visits in individuals with Parkinson disease enrolled in a clinical trial: REACT-PD study interim analysis (P4.005). Neurology. 2017;88. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    91. Sun C, Sun L, Xi S, Zhang H, Wang H, Feng Y, et al. Mobile phone-based telemedicine practice in older Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(1):e10664. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    92. Why does data traceability matter—and how do platforms help? Aetion. 2019. URL: https://aetion.com/evidence-hub/data-traceability-how-do-platforms-help/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    93. Nugent T, Upton D, Cimpoesu M. Improving data transparency in clinical trials using blockchain smart contracts. F1000Res. 2016;5:2541. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Ichikawa D, Kashiyama M, Ueno T. Tamper-resistant mobile health using blockchain technology. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(7):e111. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Maslove DM, Klein J, Brohman K, Martin P. Using blockchain technology to manage clinical trials data: a proof-of-concept study. JMIR Med Inform. 2018;6(4):e11949. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    96. Zhuang Y, Sheets L, Shae Z, Tsai JJP, Shyu CR. Applying blockchain technology for health information exchange and persistent monitoring for clinical trials. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018;2018:1167-1175. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    97. Liang X, Shetty S, Zhao J, Bowden D, Li D, Liu J. Towards decentralized accountability and self-sovereignty in healthcare systems. Springer International; 2017. Presented at: International Conference on Information and Communications Security, 19th International Conference; 2017 Dec 08:387-398; Beijing, China. URL: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-89500-0_34.pdf [CrossRef]
    98. De Brouwer W, Patel CJ, Manrai AK, Rodriguez-Chavez I, Shah NR. Empowering clinical research in a decentralized world. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4(1):102. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    99. Anderson K, Burford O, Emmerton L. Mobile health apps to facilitate self-care: a qualitative study of user experiences. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0156164. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. CTTI recommendations: decentralized clinical trials. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. 2018. URL: https://ctti-cli nicaltrials.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CTTI_DCT_Recs.pdf [accessed 2023-04-06]
    101. Lau AY, Piper K, Bokor D, Martin P, Lau VS, Coiera E. Challenges during implementation of a patient-facing mobile app for surgical rehabilitation: feasibility study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2017;4(4):e31. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. Reade S, Spencer K, Sergeant JC, Sperrin M, Schultz DM, Ainsworth J, et al. Cloudy with a chance of pain: engagement and subsequent attrition of daily data entry in a smartphone pilot study tracking weather, disease severity, and physical activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(3):e37. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Shabir H, D'Costa M, Mohiaddin Z, Moti Z, Rashid H, Sadowska D, et al. The barriers and facilitators to the use of lifestyle apps: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2022;12(2):144-165. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    104. Adu MD, Malabu UH, Malau-Aduli AEO, Malau-Aduli BS. Users' preferences and design recommendations to promote engagements with mobile apps for diabetes self-management: multi-national perspectives. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208942. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    105. Juarascio AS, Goldstein SP, Manasse SM, Forman EM, Butryn ML. Perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of a smartphone application for the treatment of binge eating disorders: qualitative feedback from a user population and clinicians. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(10):808-816. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. Abreu M, Carmo AS, Franco A, Parreira S, Vidal B, Costa M, et al. Mobile applications for epilepsy: Where are we? Where should we go? A systematic review. Signals. 2022;3(1):40-65. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    107. Morton E, Nicholas J, Lapadat L, O'Brien H, Barnes SJ, Poh C, et al. Use of smartphone apps in bipolar disorder: an international web-based survey of feature preferences and privacy concerns. J Affect Disord. 2021;295:1102-1109. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Flaherty SJ, McCarthy M, Collins A, McAuliffe F. Can existing mobile apps support healthier food purchasing behaviour? Content analysis of nutrition content, behaviour change theory and user quality integration. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(2):288-298. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Peng W, Kanthawala S, Yuan S, Hussain SA. A qualitative study of user perceptions of mobile health apps. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1158. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Urbano ICVP, Guerreiro JPV, Nicolau HMAA. From skeuomorphism to flat design: age-related differences in performance and aesthetic perceptions. Behav Inf Technol. 2020;41(3):452-467. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    111. Evett L, Brown D. Text formats and web design for visually impaired and dyslexic readers—clear text for all. Interacting Comput. 2005;17(4):453-472. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    112. Sakamoto K, Kato C. Effects on memorized information quantity in web pages using bicolor design—from the perspective of color blind people and non-color blind people. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 2020;11(1):1839-1843. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    113. Ellfattah A, Tawfik M. Web design for color blind persons. Int Des J. 2014;4(4):37-46. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    114. Kirwan M, Duncan MJ, Vandelanotte C, Mummery WK. Design, development, and formative evaluation of a smartphone application for recording and monitoring physical activity levels: the 10,000 steps "iStepLog". Health Educ Behav. 2013;40(2):140-151. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    115. Lazard AJ, Watkins I, Mackert MS, Xie B, Stephens KK, Shalev H. Design simplicity influences patient portal use: the role of aesthetic evaluations for technology acceptance. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(e1):e157-e161. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    116. Ling J, van Schaik P. The influence of font type and line length on visual search and information retrieval in web pages. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2006;64(5):395-404. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    117. Varela M, Mäki T, Skorin-Kapov L, Hoßfeld T. Towards an understanding of visual appeal in website design. IEEE; 2013. Presented at: Fifth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX); July 3, 2013:70-75; Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6603213 [CrossRef]
    118. Ashraf N, Faisal MN, Jabbar S, Habib MA. The role of website design artifacts on consumer attitude and behavioral intentions in online shopping. Technical Journal. 2019;24(2):50-60. [FREE Full text]
    119. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society. URL: https://www.himss.org/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    120. Lu Z, Su J. Clinical data management: current status, challenges, and future directions from industry perspectives. Open Access J Clin Trials. 2010;2:93-105. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    121. Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources. HL7. 2011. URL: https://www.hl7.org/fhir/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    122. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium. URL: https://www.cdisc.org/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    123. GS1 pharmaceutical clinical trial electronic messaging standard implementation guideline. GS1. 2021. URL: https://ref.gs1.org/guidelines/pharma-clinical-trial/ [accessed 2023-04-06]
    124. Neumayer B, Schnalzer B, Alcalde B, Trappenburg J. Technology package for the pan-EU pilot study including data flows and connections with external systems where necessary. Trials@Home. 2021. URL: https://trialsathome.com/deliverables/ [accessed 2023-04-06]

    ‎
    DCT: decentralized clinical trial
    EDC: electronic data capture
    REDCap: Research Electronic Data Capture

    Edited by T Leung; submitted 06.04.23; peer-reviewed by R Yunis, A Blasimme, J Waalen; comments to author 21.08.23; revised version received 11.10.23; accepted 09.07.24; published 03.09.24.

    Copyright

    ©Rachel R Copland, Sten Hanke, Amy Rogers, Lampros Mpaltadoros, Ioulietta Lazarou, Alexandra Zeltsi, Spiros Nikolopoulos, Thomas M MacDonald, Isla S Mackenzie. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 03.09.2024.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.