ArticleBMJ open2026
Do all individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus prefer decentralisation in clinical trials? Findings from a discrete choice experiment.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore differences in preferences for participation in trials with varying degrees of decentralisation among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and to show how personal, disease specific, digital and trial experience factors influence these preferences as well as impact potential trial participation rates.
designA discrete choice experiment was conducted, including 16 choice tasks, with each two trial options and an opt-out.
settingPreference data was collected in the Netherlands between July 2023 and July 2024.
participantsA total of 276 individuals with T2DM aged ≥18 years took part in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Trial options comprised six attributes: contact with the study team, activities to perform yourself, use of digital technologies, number of scheduled contacts, trial duration, safety and efficacy of the drug. Preference heterogeneity was explored using a latent class analysis.
resultsFour classes were identified displaying differences in preferences for trial designs. Younger female participants were more likely to have a strong preference for decentralised trials in any form. Two different classes of elderly participants were identified: elderly males who were more likely to accept any trial design including decentralisation versus elderly who were more likely to be averse to participation in all trials. The latter class showed an increase in participation probability for a home-based trial including video consultation, but still was not very likely to join.
conclusionsDecentralisation in trials was overall preferred over site-based trials, but variation in preferences was identified and associated with age and gender. This may impact the choice for decentralisation in trials, especially since women and the elderly are often under-represented in trials. Understanding patient preferences may help to overcome participation challenges and to increase diversity in future trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.