First 72 hours

Onboarding drop-off

Device sync

Fails quietly

Who owns it?

?

Between visits

An evidence-based explanation

DCT Software Is the Easy Part.
Execution Between Visits Is What Fails.

Decentralized designs can widen access and improve retention.1 But the peer-reviewed evidence is consistent: the risk moves to the windows between visits—where patient engagement, compliance, and the staff–patient relationship are hardest to protect.4

Decentralized & hybrid trials · Patient compliance · Operational follow-through.

EPR
WR
SYNC
ESC

DCT Execution Model

Onboard → Monitor → Outreach → Escalate

“I couldn’t pair the device and I missed my first entry.”
Concierge-led onboarding fixes setup and confirms the first data stream is flowing.
If a wearable goes quiet, outreach starts the same day—not the same week.
Own the between-visit window Software + human follow-through

About this article. The claims below are drawn from peer-reviewed studies retrieved from PubMed. Each is marked with a numbered citation linking to the full reference and DOI at the end of the page. Figures describe the broader clinical-trial evidence base and are not statements about Delve Health outcomes.

Definition: Decentralized Clinical Trial Execution

A decentralized clinical trial (DCT) reduces or removes the need for participants to physically visit a research site, relying on tools such as eConsent, apps, wearables, electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO), and telemedicine, and moving activities into the participant’s home or local settings.3 Trial design sits on a spectrum from fully decentralized to hybrid to traditional on-site.2

Decentralized clinical trial execution is the operational layer that makes those tools work: patient onboarding, device support, between-visit outreach, data monitoring, and site backup. Reviews of DCTs stress that the quality of evidence and the physician–patient relationship must not be undermined as activities move off-site.2

Decentralized and hybrid clinical trial execution between visits

Where DCT Execution Breaks — and What the Evidence Shows

These failure modes are not anecdotes. Each is supported by published clinical-trial research.

1) Reduced oversight and contact

Regulators flag reduced investigator oversight and limited face-to-face contact as core DCT risks;1 staff interviews link weaker patient contact to worse engagement and retention.4

2) Devices fail quietly

Even in feasible wearable studies, complete data were obtained in only 72–81% of participants, depending on device—gaps that rarely trigger an alarm.6

3) Sites carry new burden

Research staff report the demands of their role increase under DCTs, making consistent remote follow-up harder to deliver.4

4) Compliance drifts over time

Across 1,342 patients in three respiratory trials, daily ePRO adherence declined after randomization, and pre-enrollment adherence predicted later adherence.5

5) Patient confusion compounds

Stakeholders name compliance and adherence as key barriers; clear instructions and direct patient assistance are named facilitators.8

6) Attrition is substantial

A meta-analysis of 70 app-based randomized trials found pooled attrition of 24.7%, rising to 38.7% in larger studies.9

7) Data integrity is a moving target

DCTs raise data-integrity concerns at the point of capture, during transmission, and in analysis—each a place signal can be lost.3

8) High-burden populations are most exposed

The participants DCTs aim to help—rare disease, pediatric, elderly, and caregiver-dependent—carry the most burden when execution slips.11

Software Collects Data. Execution Produces Data.

Platform alone

  • Self-serve onboarding, no confirmation of first stream
  • Silent device gaps surface late6
  • Reduced contact weakens engagement4
  • Compliance drifts unchecked5
  • Higher attrition risk9

Platform + execution

  • Concierge-led onboarding confirms data is flowing
  • Device and data signals monitored daily
  • Person-to-person contact supports retention10
  • Direct patient assistance reduces friction8
  • Endpoint integrity protected from day one

Across 172 randomized trials, retention was higher when contact was person-to-person rather than at-a-distance.10

What Good DCT Execution Looks Like

Strong decentralized and hybrid execution combines four layers that most “platforms” sell as one but rarely deliver together. Each maps to a finding in the literature.

Adherence is achievable when device and support fit: in one screening trial, a wearable ECG patch reached a median wear time of 27.4 of 28 days and was well tolerated.7 This is what an execution team delivers, supported by software.

Learn about Concierge-as-a-Service™

A clinical trial concierge supporting a patient by video call, with eCOA and wearable data in view

The Evidence at a Glance

Key figures from peer-reviewed clinical-trial research, retrieved from PubMed. Full citations are listed under References.

76%

of surveyed sponsors, device makers, and CROs used decentralized techniques in the early pandemic.3

24.7%

pooled attrition across 70 app-based randomized trials (38.7% in larger studies).9

72–81%

of participants yielded complete wearable data in a feasibility study—device-dependent gaps remain.6

1,342 patients

showed ePRO adherence declining over time after randomization across three respiratory trials.5

27.4 / 28 days

median wearable ECG patch wear time in a screening RCT—high adherence is achievable with the right setup.7

172 trials

linked higher retention to person-to-person rather than at-a-distance contact.10

80.5% median

participant retention across 172 behavioural randomized trials (IQR 68.5–89.5%)—it varies widely by design and contact.10

20 regulators

EU regulators interviewed on DCTs cited gains in access and retention, alongside reduced oversight and limited face-to-face contact.1

FAQ

What is a decentralized clinical trial?

A decentralized clinical trial reduces or removes site visits, using eConsent, apps, wearables, ePRO, and telemedicine, with activities moved into the participant’s home or local settings.3

What is the difference between a decentralized and a hybrid clinical trial?

Trial design sits on a spectrum from fully decentralized to hybrid to traditional on-site; a hybrid trial blends remote and in-person visits, and most DCTs in practice are hybrid.2

How do you keep patients compliant in a decentralized trial?

Evidence points to person-to-person contact for retention,10 clear instructions and direct assistance to reduce friction,8 and proactive monitoring because adherence declines over time.5

Do decentralized clinical trials produce regulatory-grade data?

They can, when execution is sound. Regulators see DCTs as a way to improve access and retention but emphasize oversight, safety, and—often—hybrid designs;1 reviews stress protecting data integrity and the physician–patient relationship.2

Which studies benefit most from strong DCT execution?

Participant-centric, decentralized approaches are especially valuable where burden is high—rare disease, pediatric, and elderly populations, and participants who depend on caregiver assistance or live far from sites.11

How does Delve Health support decentralized trials?

Delve Health combines the Clinical StudyPal platform, wearable and eCOA workflows, device logistics, and concierge patient support, operating the between-visit window so sponsors are not relying on dashboards alone.

FAQ and practical guidance for decentralized clinical trial execution

References

Evidence summarized in this article was retrieved from PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine). Each citation links to the original peer-reviewed article via its DOI.

  1. de Jong AJ, van Rijssel TI, Zuidgeest MGP, et al. Opportunities and Challenges for Decentralized Clinical Trials: European Regulators’ Perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2022;112(2):344–352. doi.org/10.1002/cpt.2628
  2. Sehrawat O, Noseworthy PA, Siontis KC, et al. Data-Driven and Technology-Enabled Trial Innovations Toward Decentralization of Clinical Trials. Mayo Clin Proc. 2023;98(9):1404–1421. doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.02.003
  3. Petrini C, Mannelli C, Riva L, Gainotti S, Gussoni G. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs): A few ethical considerations. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1081150. doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1081150
  4. Gamble E, Heavin C, Linehan C. Adaptation of Clinical Research Staff to Decentralized Clinical Trials and Impacts on the Patient-Centered Experience: Qualitative Interview Study. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e62947. doi.org/10.2196/62947
  5. Nowojewski A, Bark E, Shih VH, Dearden R. Patient adherence and response time in electronic patient-reported outcomes: insights from three longitudinal clinical trials. Qual Life Res. 2024;33(6):1691–1706. doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03644-w
  6. Avitabile CM, Yung D, Handler S, et al. Measurement of Physical Activity by Actigraphy in Infants and Young Children with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. J Pediatr. 2023;262:113639. doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.113639
  7. Gladstone DJ, Wachter R, Schmalstieg-Bahr K, et al. Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Older Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2021;6(5):558–567. doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2021.0038
  8. Coert RMH, Timmis JK, Boorsma A, Pasman WJ. Stakeholder Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators for the Adoption of Virtual Clinical Trials: Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(7):e26813. doi.org/10.2196/26813
  9. Linardon J. Rates of attrition and engagement in randomized controlled trials of mindfulness apps: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Behav Res Ther. 2023;170:104421. doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2023.104421
  10. Bricca A, Swithenbank Z, Scott N, et al. Predictors of recruitment and retention in randomized controlled trials of behavioural smoking cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Addiction. 2021;117(2):299–311. doi.org/10.1111/add.15614
  11. Ghadessi M, Di J, Wang C, et al. Decentralized clinical trials and rare diseases: a DIA-IDSWG perspective. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2023;18(1):79. doi.org/10.1186/s13023-023-02693-7