OBJECTIVES: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) data collection can rely on various electronic devices, including sponsor-provided handhelds (pHH) and study participants’ personal smartphones (“bring your own device”; BYOD) to allow data collection away from study sites. Despite prolonged availability of both options, there seems to be a scarcity of data regarding study participants’ device preference when given the free choice between pHH and BYOD within the same study.

METHODS: Our post-hoc analysis of studies using Clario as an ePRO technology vendor aimed at identifying BYOD-vs-pHH device utilization patterns as a proxy for device preference, and the potential underlying drivers shaping them. Twenty-six completed studies that had collected and transferred at least one BYOD- and one pHH-based datapoint were identified from Clario in-house metadata.

RESULTS: There were 10,128 participants included in this sample displaying an overall 58% BYOD utilization vs. pHH (42%). The studies in our sample covered all four phases of clinical development and a variety of therapeutic areas, with Vaccines/Infection and Neurology (including Pain) featured most prominently (8 studies each). Fifty-four countries were represented in the sample and covered all major regions of the globe, with BYOD utilization ranging from 17% in APAC to 66% in Western Europe (including UK and Israel). There was no obvious relation between device utilization and distinct age groups enrolled in different studies.

CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary analysis indicates a relative absence of overly manifest relations between study and participant characteristics and BYOD-vs-pHH device utilization. In contrast, geographic differences might be a more evident driver of device utilization. Further analyses should focus on the possible combinatory effect of multiple drivers on device utilization patterns.