A Cattapan1, K Browne2, D M Halperin3, A Di Castri4, P Fullsack4, J Graham5, J M Langley5, B A Taylor6, S A McNeil7, S A Halperin5. 1. Novel Tech Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Electronic address: alana.cattapan@usask.ca. 2. Novel Tech Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Department of Philosophy, Langara College, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. School of Nursing, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada; Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and the Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 4. Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and the Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 5. Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and the Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 6. Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and the Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; School of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 7. Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, and the Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/HYPOTHESIS: Recruitment of participants into phase 1 vaccine clinical trials can be challenging since these vaccines have not been used in humans and there is no perceived benefit to the participant. Occasionally, as was the case with a phase 1 clinical trial of an Ebola vaccine in Halifax, Canada, during the 2014-2016 West African Ebola virus outbreak, recruitment is less difficult. In this study, we explored the motivations of participants in two phase 1 vaccine trials that were concurrently enrolling at the same centre and compared the motivations of participants in a high-profile phase 1 Ebola vaccine trial to those in a less high-profile phase 1 adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine study. METHODS: An online survey which included participants' prior experience with clinical trials, motivations to participate (including financial incentives), and demographic information was developed to examine the motivations of healthy participants in two phase 1 clinical vaccine trials conducted at the Canadian Center for Vaccinology in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Participants were invited via email to complete the online survey. Readability and clarity were assessed through pilot testing. RESULTS: A total of 49 (55.7%) of 88 participants of the two studies completed the survey (22 [55%] of 40 participants from the Ebola vaccine study and 27 [56.3%] of 48 from the adjuvanted influenza vaccine study). Motivations that were most frequently ranked among participants' top three in both trials were (1) wanting to contribute to the health of others, (2) wanting to participate in something important, (3) wanting to contribute to the advancement of science, and (4) wanting to receive an incentive such as money or a tablet. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Although media attention and financial compensation were more often cited by Ebola vaccine trial participants as a reason to participate, both altruistic and self-interested factors were important motivations for participants in their decision to participate in a phase 1 vaccine clinical trial.
INTRODUCTION/HYPOTHESIS: Recruitment of participants into phase 1 vaccine clinical trials can be challenging since these vaccines have not been used in humans and there is no perceived benefit to the participant. Occasionally, as was the case with a phase 1 clinical trial of an Ebola vaccine in Halifax, Canada, during the 2014-2016 West African Ebola virus outbreak, recruitment is less difficult. In this study, we explored the motivations of participants in two phase 1 vaccine trials that were concurrently enrolling at the same centre and compared the motivations of participants in a high-profile phase 1 Ebola vaccine trial to those in a less high-profile phase 1 adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine study. METHODS: An online survey which included participants' prior experience with clinical trials, motivations to participate (including financial incentives), and demographic information was developed to examine the motivations of healthy participants in two phase 1 clinical vaccine trials conducted at the Canadian Center for Vaccinology in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Participants were invited via email to complete the online survey. Readability and clarity were assessed through pilot testing. RESULTS: A total of 49 (55.7%) of 88 participants of the two studies completed the survey (22 [55%] of 40 participants from the Ebola vaccine study and 27 [56.3%] of 48 from the adjuvanted influenza vaccine study). Motivations that were most frequently ranked among participants' top three in both trials were (1) wanting to contribute to the health of others, (2) wanting to participate in something important, (3) wanting to contribute to the advancement of science, and (4) wanting to receive an incentive such as money or a tablet. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Although media attention and financial compensation were more often cited by Ebola vaccine trial participants as a reason to participate, both altruistic and self-interested factors were important motivations for participants in their decision to participate in a phase 1 vaccine clinical trial.
Authors: Aita Signorell; Jasmina Saric; Christian Appenzeller-Herzog; Hannah Ewald; Christian Burri; Martin Goetz; Jana Gerold Journal: Trials Date: 2021-12-27 Impact factor: 2.279