CISCRP: What patients want from Hybrid Trials

Hybrid Trials are about choice: not just more technology

A conversation between Greg Tullo, eClinical Strategy Officer at Viedoc, and Annick de Bruin, Chief Research & Insights Officer at CISCRP

CISCRP's Perceptions and Insights (P&I) study is one of the most complete pictures we have of how patients experience clinical research (more than 10,000 respondents worldwide, surveyed biennially since 2013). I recently spoke with Annick de Bruin, CISCRP's Chief Research & Insights Officer, about what the latest findings tell us about remote participation, digital data capture, and where the industry still gets “patient-centric” wrong. Here's an edited version of our conversation.

Choice over convenience

Greg Tullo: Across the latest P&I findings, what stands out most about how patients' expectations of trial participation are changing?

Annick de Bruin: Patients increasingly expect participation to fit into their daily lives, rather than rearranging their lives around a trial. That means flexibility: being offered options like remote visits, local labs, telehealth, and home assessments. It also means transparency: patients want access to their own individual results, not just aggregate data, and they want to be treated as partners, with clear communication and respect for their time. That builds trust, which matters just as much as any single feature.

Greg Tullo: Twenty-six percent of respondents said remote or local visit options were one of the top three factors in choosing between two trials. How should sponsors and CROs read that?

Annick de Bruin: As evidence that participation logistics increasingly influence trial choice, patients are telling us that how they participate matters, not just what's being studied. I don't think patients are asking for fully virtual studies. What they're asking for is choice: the flexibility to complete study activities closer to home, remotely when appropriate, and in ways that minimize disruption to work, family, and daily life. Sponsors should evaluate participant burden with the same rigor as any other aspect of study design, since it can support both enrollment and retention.

Comfort with digital tools

Greg Tullo: The data shows real comfort with home assessments, video visits, and digital diaries. Does that mean patients are ready for hybrid trials?

Annick de Bruin: Most patients are more than ready, especially after experiencing some of these tools in their regular healthcare during the pandemic. But comfort with a technology isn't the same as a positive experience using it. If a tool saves time and fits seamlessly into daily life, it enhances participation. If it's cumbersome, comfort alone won't save it. And we shouldn't forget the human touch: patients consistently tell us that interactions with study staff shape their overall experience. Comfort with technology doesn't mean they want 100% remote.

Greg Tullo: Sixty-eight percent of participants said they'd used a smartphone app for questionnaires or diaries. Has mobile data capture become the norm?

Annick de Bruin: It's becoming a more prevalent part of clinical trials, but that doesn't mean it's right for every patient or every study. A few years ago, sponsors were asking whether participants would use mobile tools at all. Now the better question is how to design those tools so they create a genuinely better participant experience and generate high-quality data, while staying mindful that preferences, access, and comfort levels still vary.

Hybrid should mean options, not either/or

Greg Tullo: The industry sometimes frames decentralized trials as a choice between traditional sites and fully remote participation. Is that the wrong framing?

Annick de Bruin: I think so. Patients want options; ideally it isn't a choice between one or the other. Letting participants choose among site visits, local options, telehealth, and at-home activities matters because it lets the trial fit their individual lives rather than the other way around. And in-person interaction is still critical for building trust with study staff, handling more complex assessments, discussing sensitive information, and supporting patients who are less comfortable with technology.

US vs Europe

Greg Tullo: What differences do you see between the US and Europe in comfort with remote participation?

Annick de Bruin: It's a consistent pattern in our research: respondents in the US are generally more comfortable with telemedicine, portals, and flexible, technology-enabled options than respondents in Europe, who tend to prefer seeing their own doctor at their own clinic. Sponsors running global studies should expect that gap to close more slowly in Europe than in North America.

Designing for hybrid trials

Greg Tullo: If you were advising a sponsor or CRO designing a new hybrid study, what should they ask before choosing their patient-facing technology?

Annick de Bruin: Engage the target patient population early, before the protocol design is locked, and talk through how the study and its technologies should be structured. That one step tends to result in faster enrollment, improved retention, and fewer costly protocol amendments later. A well-designed out-of-clinic experience is customized to individual patient needs; it isn't automatically “patient-centric” just because it's decentralized.

What's next

Greg Tullo: If we revisit this research in two or four years, what do you expect will have changed most?

Annick de Bruin: Continued growth in hybrid participation: more routine use of local labs, telehealth, mobile data collection, and home-based assessments where scientifically appropriate. But I don't think the future is fully virtual; I think it's increasingly personalized, shaped by each participant's condition, preferences, and comfort with technology. I also expect higher expectations for communication and transparency. Most importantly, I think the conversation shifts from asking whether patients are willing to use digital tools to asking whether those tools actually improve the participant experience: from technology adoption to experience design.

The Viedoc perspective

Annick's point about “patient-centric” not being automatic is one we take seriously. It's why Viedoc Me takes a BYOD-first approach to ePRO and brings e-consent, pre-screening, and an AI assistant into a single onboarding experience, built to reduce friction without reducing the human contact patients consistently say matters most. CISCRP's next P&I study, planned for 2027, will put even more focus on AI. We're looking forward to that conversation continuing.