Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-2
Effects of health technology use and digital health engagement on clinical trial Participation: Findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey
The existing literature indicates that clinical trial knowledge and participation is multifactorial, yet little is known about the association with digital health technology use and digital health engagement. To address this gap, we examined the multivariate association between clinical trial knowledge and participation with past-year health technology use and digital health engagement with medical providers using data from a federal surveillance system in the United States.
Methods
A total of 3865 US adult respondents from the Health Information National Trends Survey 5, Cycle 4 provided data in 2020. The two outcomes were clinical trial knowledge (no knowledge, a little knowledge, a lot of knowledge) and participation (never invited, invited did not participate, invited and participated). There were four binary indicators of health technology use for the following purposes in the past year: searching for health or medical information, communicating with a doctor’s office, looking up medical test results, and making medical appointments. There were four binary indicators of digital health engagement in the past year: sharing health information on social media, participating in a health forum or support group, watching health-related videos on YouTube, and awareness of ClinicalTrials.gov.
Results
Survey-weighted multivariate regression models demonstrated that awareness of ClinicalTrials.gov had the greatest associations with clinical trial knowledge (adjusted risk ratio = 7.60, 95% confidence interval: 4.82–12.00) and participation (adjusted risk ratio = 2.60, 95% confidence interval: 1.23–5.54). Using digital technology to look for health information (adjusted risk ratio = 1.35, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–1.71) and communicate with doctor’s offices were significantly associated with higher clinical trial knowledge (adjusted risk ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval: 1.25–2.14). Involvement in an online forum or support group was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of being invited but not participating in a clinical trial (adjusted risk ratio = 2.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.22–4.39), while using digital technology to make medical appointments was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of clinical trial participation (adjusted risk ratio = 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.07–2.99).
Conclusions
Findings from this study can inform the design of large-scale digital health campaigns and quality improvement programs focused on increasing clinical trial participation.
WestergaardRPBeachMCSahaS, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in trust in health care: HIV conspiracy beliefs and vaccine research participation. J Gen Intern Med2014; 29(1): 140–146.
3.
NarayananSChuaJVHeilE.COVID-19: pitfalls in offering research participation as therapy in clinical settings. J Gen Intern Med2020; 35(11): 3359–3360.
4.
KripalaniSHeermanWJPatelNJ, et al. Association of health literacy and numeracy with interest in research participation. J Gen Intern Med2019; 34(4): 544–551.
5.
ChauAJSudoreRLHaysRD, et al. Telephone outreach enhances recruitment of underrepresented seriously ill patients for an advance care planning pragmatic trial. J Gen Intern Med2023; 38(8): 1848–1853.
6.
Bibbins-DomingoKHelmanADzauVJ.The imperative for diversity and inclusion in clinical trials and health research participation. JAMA2022; 327: 2283–2284.
7.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine, et al. Improving representation in clinical trials and research: building research equity for women and underrepresented groups. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2022.
8.
TannerAKimSHFriedmanDB, et al. Promoting clinical research to medically underserved communities: current practices and perceptions about clinical trial recruiting strategies. Contemp Clin Trials2015; 41: 39–44.
9.
BuckleyPRMurryVMGustCJ, et al. Racial and ethnic representation in preventive intervention research: a methodological study. Prev Sci2023; 24: 1261–1274.
10.
ChoYShangSZhouW.Comorbidities were associated with cancer clinical trial discussion and participation: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (2021). J Clin Epidemiol2023; 163: 62–69.
11.
NguyenOTTurnerKLeeJ, et al. Clinical trial knowledge among US adults aged 65 years and up: findings from a 2020 national survey. J Am Geriatr Soc2023; 71(6): 1917–1922.
12.
WalkerDMSwobodaCMShiu-YeeK, et al. Diversity of participation in clinical trials and influencing factors: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey 2020. J Gen Intern Med2023; 38(4): 961–969.
13.
WilliamsCPGeigerAMNortonWE, et al. Influence of cost-related considerations on clinical trial participation: results from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Gen Intern Med2023; 38(5): 1200–1206.
14.
TajFKleinMCAVan HalterenA.Digital health behavior change technology: bibliometric and scoping review of two decades of research. JMIR mHealth uHealth2019; 7: e13311.
15.
HiltyDChanSTorousJ, et al. A framework for competencies for the use of mobile technologies in psychiatry and medicine: scoping review. JMIR mHealth uHealth2020; 8: e12229.
16.
JacobCSezginESanchez-VazquezA, et al. Sociotechnical factors affecting patients’ adoption of mobile health tools: systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. JMIR mHealth uHealth2022; 10: e36284.
17.
WannhedenCÅberg-WennerholmMDahlbergM, et al. Digital health technologies enabling partnerships in chronic care management: scoping review. J Med Internet Res2022; 24: e38980.
18.
YaoRZhangWEvansR, et al. Inequities in health care services caused by the adoption of digital health technologies: scoping review. J Med Internet Res2022; 24: e34144.
19.
WoolleyKEBrightDAyresT, et al. Mapping inequities in digital health technology within the World Health Organization’s European region using PROGRESS PLUS: scoping review. J Med Internet Res2023; 25: e44181.
20.
LangfordAResnicowKAnL.Clinical trial awareness among racial/ethnic minorities in HINTS 2007: sociodemographic, attitudinal, and knowledge correlates. J Health Commun2010; 15(3 suppl. 3): 92–101.
21.
OccaAMerrittASLeipA, et al. What influences trust in and understanding of clinical trials? An analysis of information and communication technology use and online health behavior from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Clin Trials2024; 21(1): 95–113.
22.
NelsonDEKrepsGLHesseBW, et al. The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination. J Health Commun2004; 9(5): 443–460; discussion 81–84.
23.
Van BuurenSGroothuis-OudshoornK. Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw2011; 45: 1–67.
24.
svyVGAM: design-based inference in vector generalised linear models. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=svyVGAM (accessed 26 July 2024).
25.
SongHOmoriKKimJ, et al. Trusting social media as a source of health information: online surveys comparing the United States, Korea, and Hong Kong. J Med Internet Res2016; 18: e25.
26.
RisingCJGaysynskyABlakeKD, et al. Willingness to share data from wearable health and activity trackers: analysis of the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey data. JMIR mHealth uHealth2021; 9: e29190.
27.
FeuerZMatulewiczRSBasakR, et al. Non-oncology clinical trial engagement in a nationally representative sample: identification of motivators and barriers. Contemp Clin Trials2022; 115: 106715.
28.
YadavSToddAPatelK, et al. Public knowledge and information sources for clinical trials among adults in the USA: evidence from a Health Information National Trends Survey in 2020. Clin Med2022; 22(5): 416–422.
29.
LissDTUchidaTWilkesCL, et al. General health checks in adult primary care: a review. JAMA2021; 325: 2294–2306.
30.
HesseBWNelsonDEKrepsGL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med2005; 165: 2618–2624.
31.
PaigeSRKriegerJLStellefsonML.The influence of eHealth literacy on perceived trust in online health communication channels and sources. J Health Commun2017; 22(1): 53–65.
32.
LobachDFBoxwalaAKashyapN, et al. Integrating a patient engagement app into an electronic health record-enabled workflow using interoperability standards. Appl Clin Inform2022; 13(5): 1163–1171.
33.
GoldhaberNHJacobsMBLaurentLC, et al. Integrating clinical research into electronic health record workflows to support a learning health system. JAMIA Open2024; 7(2): ooae023.
34.
CullenMRLemeshowARAmaroS, et al. A framework for setting enrollment goals to ensure participant diversity in sponsored clinical trials in the United States. Contemp Clin Trials2023; 129: 107184.
35.
BenedumCMSarkarSBozkurtS, et al. POP-REFINE: a comprehensive framework for evaluating and optimizing representativeness in clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther2025; 117(4): 1051–1060.
36.
KozlovM.FDA to require diversity plan for clinical trials. Nature. Epub ahead of print 16 February 2023. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00469-4.
37.
FangYIdnayBSunY, et al. Combining human and machine intelligence for clinical trial eligibility querying. J Am Med Inform Assoc2022; 29: 1161–1171.
38.
DaiHJChenCCMirTH, et al. Integrating predictive coding and a user-centric interface for enhanced auditing and quality in cancer registry data. Comput Struct Biotechnol J2024; 24: 322–333.
39.
KasaharaAMitchellJYangJ, et al. Digital technologies used in clinical trial recruitment and enrollment including application to trial diversity and inclusion: a systematic review. Digit Health. Epub ahead of print 28 March 2024. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241242390.
40.
ParkJFangYTaC, et al. Criteria2Query 3.0: leveraging generative large language models for clinical trial eligibility query generation. J Biomed Inform2024; 154: 104649.
41.
LylesCRLunnMRObedin-MaliverJ, et al. The new era of precision population health: insights for the All of Us Research Program and beyond. J Transl Med2018; 16: 211.
LolicMAraojoROkekeM, et al. Racial and ethnic representation in US clinical trials of new drugs and biologics, 2015-2019. JAMA2021; 326: 2201–2203.
44.
GeskeyJMKodish-WachsJBlonskyH, et al. National documentation and coding practices of noncompliance: the importance of social determinants of health and the stigma of African-American bias. Am J Med Qual2023; 38: 87–92.
45.
MinayaCMcKayDBentonH, et al. Medical mistrust, COVID-19 stress, and intent to vaccinate in racial-ethnic minorities. Behav Sci2022; 12: 186.
46.
ThompsonHSManningMMitchellJ, et al. Factors associated with racial/ethnic group-based medical mistrust and perspectives on COVID-19 vaccine trial participation and vaccine uptake in the US. JAMA Netw Open2021; 4: e2111629.
47.
MisraSJacksonVWChongJ, et al. Systematic review of cultural aspects of stigma and mental illness among racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States: implications for interventions. Am J Community Psychol2021; 68(3–4): 486–512.
48.
AdiaACNazarenoJOperarioD, et al. Health conditions, outcomes, and service access among Filipino, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean adults in California, 2011-2017. Am J Public Health2020; 110(4): 520–526.
49.
BaluranDA.Life expectancy, life disparity, and differential racialization among Chinese, Asian Indians, and Filipinos in the United States. SSM Popul Health2023; 21: 101306.
50.
SharmaA.A national profile of functional limitations among Asian Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci2020; 75: 1021–1029.
51.
YuSMHuangZJSinghGK.Health status and health services access and utilization among Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, South Asian, and Vietnamese children in California. Am J Public Health2010; 100(5): 823–830.
52.
ParkHChoiEWenzelJA.Racial/ethnic differences in correlates of psychological distress among five Asian-American subgroups and non-Hispanic Whites. Ethn Health2020; 25(8): 1072–1088.
53.
WangKGrossetta NardiniHPostL, et al. Information loss in harmonizing granular race and ethnicity data: descriptive study of standards. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: e14591.
54.
BensonKHartzAJ.A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med2000; 342: 1878–1886.
55.
HernánMARobinsJM.Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am J Epidemiol2016; 183: 758–764.
56.
HandleyMALylesCRMcCullochC, et al. Selecting and improving quasi-experimental designs in effectiveness and implementation research. Annu Rev Public Health2018; 39: 5–25.
57.
KesslerRCBossarteRMLuedtkeA, et al. Machine learning methods for developing precision treatment rules with observational data. Behav Res Ther2019; 120: 103412.
58.
KnoxJSchwartzSDuncanDT, et al. Proposing the observational-implementation hybrid approach: designing observational research for rapid translation. Ann Epidemiol2023; 85: 45–50.
59.
CossNAGaitánJMAdans-DesterCP, et al. Does clinical research account for diversity in deploying digital health technologies?NPJ Digit Med2023; 6: 187.
60.
BadrJMotulskyADenisJL.Digital health technologies and inequalities: a scoping review of potential impacts and policy recommendations. Health Policy2024; 146: 105122.
61.
MothupiMDasguptaJHosseini JebeliSS, et al. Using an intersectionality approach to transform health services for overlooked healthcare users and workers after Covid-19. BMJ2023; 381: e072243.
62.
MarraCSternAD.Tepid uptake of digital health technologies in clinical trials by pharmaceutical and medical device firms. Clin Pharmacol Ther2024; 115(5): 988–992.
63.
De BoerJAikingH. Citizens and conspiratorial anti-science beliefs: opposition versus support in 38 countries across Europe. Public Underst Sci2024; 33(8): 1027–1045.
64.
RutjensBTVećkalovB.Conspiracy beliefs and science rejection. Curr Opin Psychol2022; 46: 101392.
65.
CallejaNAbdAllahAAbadN, et al. A public health research agenda for managing infodemics: methods and results of the first WHO infodemiology conference. JMIR Infodemiology2021; 1(1): e30979.
66.
HillyerGCBeaucheminMHershmanDL, et al. Discordant attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation between physicians, research staff, and cancer patients. Clin Trials2020; 17(2): 184–194.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
