Inadequate recruitment and retention impede clinical trial goals. Emerging decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) leveraging digital health technologies (DHTs) for remote recruitment and data collection aim to address barriers to participation in traditional trials. The ACTIV-6 trial is a DCT using DHTs, but participants’ experiences of such trials remain largely unknown. This study explored participants’ perspectives of the ACTIV-6 DCT that tested outpatient COVID-19 therapeutics.

Participants in the ACTIV-6 study were recruited via email to share their day-to-day trial experiences during 1-hour virtual focus groups. Two human factors researchers guided group discussions through a semi-structured script that probed expectations and perceptions of study activities. Qualitative data analysis was conducted using a grounded theory approach with open coding to identify key themes.

Twenty-eight ACTIV-6 study participants aged 30+ years completed a virtual focus group including 1–4 participants each. Analysis yielded three major themes: perceptions of the DCT experience, study activity engagement, and trust. Participants perceived the use of remote DCT procedures supported by DHTs as an acceptable and efficient method of organizing and tracking study activities, communicating with study personnel, and managing study medications at home. Use of social media was effective in supporting geographically dispersed participant recruitment but also raised issues with trust and study legitimacy.

While participants in this qualitative study viewed the DCT-with-DHT approach as reasonably efficient and engaging, they also identified challenges to address. Understanding facilitators and barriers to DCT participation and DHT interaction can help improve future research design.

Many clinical trials leverage real-world data. Typically, these data are manually abstracted from electronic health records (EHRs) and entered into electronic case report forms (CRFs), a time and labor-intensive process that is also error-prone and may miss information. Automated transfer of data from EHRs to eCRFs has the potential to reduce data abstraction and entry burden as well as improve data quality and safety.

We conducted a test of automated EHR-to-CRF data transfer for 40 participants in a clinical trial of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We determined which coordinator-entered data could be automated from the EHR (coverage), and the frequency with which the values from the automated EHR feed and values entered by study personnel for the actual study matched exactly (concordance).

The automated EHR feed populated 10,081/11,952 (84%) coordinator-completed values. For fields where both the automation and study personnel provided data, the values matched exactly 89% of the time. Highest concordance was for daily lab results (94%), which also required the most personnel resources (30 minutes per participant). In a detailed analysis of 196 instances where personnel and automation entered values differed, both a study coordinator and a data analyst agreed that 152 (78%) instances were a result of data entry error.

An automated EHR feed has the potential to significantly decrease study personnel effort while improving the accuracy of CRF data.

To describe the cumulative seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among employees of a large pediatric healthcare system.

Prospective observational cohort study open to adult employees at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, conducted April 20–December 17, 2020.

Employees were recruited starting with high-risk exposure groups, utilizing e-mails, flyers, and announcements at virtual town hall meetings. At baseline, 1 month, 2 months, and 6 months, participants reported occupational and community exposures and gave a blood sample for SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). A post hoc Cox proportional hazards regression model was performed to identify factors associated with increased risk for seropositivity.

In total, 1,740 employees were enrolled. At 6 months, the cumulative seroprevalence was 5.3%, which was below estimated community point seroprevalence. Seroprevalence was 5.8% among employees who provided direct care and was 3.4% among employees who did not perform direct patient care. Most participants who were seropositive at baseline remained positive at follow-up assessments. In a post hoc analysis, direct patient care (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–3.68), Black race (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.24–5.87), and exposure to a confirmed case in a nonhealthcare setting (HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 2.71–6.88) were associated with statistically significant increased risk for seropositivity.

Employee SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rates remained below the point-prevalence rates of the surrounding community. Provision of direct patient care, Black race, and exposure to a confirmed case in a nonhealthcare setting conferred increased risk. These data can inform occupational protection measures to maximize protection of employees within the workplace during future COVID-19 waves or other epidemics.