Search

INTRODUCTION: Recent growth in the functionality and use of technology has prompted an increased interest in the potential for remote or decentralized clinical trials in dementia. There are many potential benefits associated with decentralized medication trials, but we currently lack specific recommendations for their delivery in the dementia field. METHODS: A modified Delphi method engaged an expert panel to develop recommendations for the conduct of decentralized medication trials in dementia prevention. A working group of researchers and clinicians with expertise in dementia trials further refined the recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, the recommendations support the delivery of decentralized trials in dementia prevention provided adequate safety checks and balances are included. A total of 40 recommendations are presented, spanning aspects of decentralized clinical trials, including safety, dispensing, outcome assessment, and data collection. DISCUSSION: These recommendations provide an accessible, pragmatic guide for the design and conduct of remote medication trials for dementia prevention. Highlights: Clinical trials of medication have begun adopting decentralized approaches.Researchers in the field lack guidance on what would be appropriate circumstances and frameworks for what would be appropriate circumstances and frameworks for the use of decentralized trial methods in dementia prevention.The present report provides consensus‐based expert recommendations for decentralized clinical trials for dementia prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Timely collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) decreases emergency department visits and hospitalizations and increases survival. However, little is known about the outcome predictivity of unpaid informal caregivers' reporting using similar clinical outcome assessments. Objective: The aim of this study is to assess whether caregivers and adults with cancer adhered to a planned schedule for electronically collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and if PROs were associated with future clinical events. Methods: We developed 2 iPhone apps to collect PROs, one for patients with cancer and another for caregivers. We enrolled 52 patient-caregiver dyads from Kaiser Permanente Northern California in a nonrandomized study. Participants used the apps independently for 4 weeks. Specific clinical events were obtained from the patients' electronic health records up to 6 months following the study. We used logistic and quasi-Poisson regression analyses to test associations between PROs and clinical events. Results: Participants completed 97% (251/260) of the planned Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) surveys and 98% (254/260) of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys. PRO-CTCAE surveys completed by caregivers were associated with patients' hospitalizations or emergency department visits, grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, dose reductions (P <.05), and hospice referrals (P =.03). PROMIS surveys completed by caregivers were associated with hospice referrals (P =.02). PRO-CTCAE surveys completed by patients were not associated with any clinical events, but their baseline PROMIS surveys were associated with mortality (P =.03), while their antecedent or final PROMIS surveys were associated with all clinical events examined except for total days of treatment breaks. Conclusions: In this study, caregivers and patients completed PROs using smartphone apps as requested. The association of caregiver PRO-CTCAE surveys with patient clinical events suggests that this is a feasible approach to reducing patient burden in clinical trial data collection and may help provide early information about increasing symptom severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Digital technologies are increasingly used in health research to collect real-world data from wider populations. A new wave of digital health studies relies primarily on digital technologies to conduct research entirely remotely. Remote digital health studies hold promise to significant cost and time advantages over traditional, in-person studies. However, such studies have been reported to typically suffer from participant attrition, the sources for which are still largely understudied.Objective: To contribute to future remote digital health study planning, we present a conceptual framework and hypotheses for study enrollment and completion. The framework introduces 3 participation criteria that impact remote digital health study outcomes: (1) participant motivation profile and incentives or nudges, (2) participant task complexity, and (3) scientific requirements. The goal of this study is to inform the planning and implementation of remote digital health studies from a person-centered perspective.Methods: We conducted a scoping review to collect information on participation in remote digital health studies, focusing on methodological aspects that impact participant enrollment and retention. Comprehensive searches were conducted on the PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, and additional sources were included in our study from citation searching. We included digital health studies that were fully conducted remotely, included information on at least one of the framework criteria during recruitment, onboarding or retention phases of the studies, and included study enrollment or completion outcomes. Qualitative analyses were performed to synthesize the findings from the included studies.Results: We report qualitative findings from 37 included studies that reveal high values of achieved median participant enrollment based on target sample size calculations, 128% (IQR 100%-234%), and median study completion, 48% (IQR 35%-76%). Increased median study completion is observed for studies that provided incentives or nudges to extrinsically motivated participants (62%, IQR 43%-78%). Reducing task complexity for participants in the absence of incentives or nudges did not improve median study enrollment (103%, IQR 102%-370%) or completion (43%, IQR 22%-60%) in observational studies, in comparison to interventional studies that provided more incentives or nudges (median study completion rate of 55%, IQR 38%-79%). Furthermore, there were inconsistencies in measures of completion across the assessed remote digital health studies, where only around half of the studies with completion measures (14/27, 52%) were based on participant retention throughout the study period.Conclusions: Few studies reported on participatory factors and study outcomes in a consistent manner, which may have limited the evidence base for our study. Our assessment may also have suffered from publication bias or unrepresentative study samples due to an observed preference for participants with digital literacy skills in digital health studies. Nevertheless, we find that future remote digital health study planning can benefit from targeting specific participant profiles, providing incentives and nudges, and reducing study complexity to improve study outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]