Findings
The selection of DHTs must align with the specific goals of the trial, focusing on unmet patient or scientific needs.
A specification-driven approach, rather than solely relying on a technology’s regulatory status, ensures alignment with trial requirements.
Verification and validation are distinct processes; both are critical to confirm the reliability and clinical relevance of DHTs.
Pre-trial feasibility studies help identify potential issues, such as wear-time compliance or usability concerns, before full implementation.
DHTs can alter participant interactions and trial workflows, necessitating clear communication, training, and management plans.

Recommendations
Define Measurement Goals Before Selection: Ensure that the decision to use a DHT is based on unmet needs or the promise of reducing trial burdens.
Adopt a Specification-Driven Selection Process: Tailor DHT selection to technical performance, participant needs, and study-specific requirements.
Verify and Validate Technologies Thoroughly: Collaborate with manufacturers to ensure DHTs are tested in both controlled and real-world settings and validated for the target population.
Conduct Feasibility Studies: Test DHTs for tolerability, usability, and compliance within the specific trial context to identify and address issues early.
Prepare for Operational Challenges: Develop a robust management plan with standard operating procedures (SOPs) to address potential failures and ensure smooth implementation.

Regulatory Considerations
The regulatory status of a DHT should not solely drive its selection; instead, focus on its ability to meet trial specifications.
Ensure transparent collaboration with manufacturers to document DHT performance characteristics and limitations.
Validate endpoints and DHT data to align with evidentiary standards for regulatory submissions.
Use feasibility studies and SOPs to ensure that DHTs comply with regulatory and operational requirements during trials.