N Gobat1, C C Butler2, J Mollison3, N A Francis4, M Gal4, V Harris3, S A R Webb5, J-P Byrne6, A Watkins4, P Sukumar6, K Hood7, A Nichol8. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nina.gobat@phc.ox.ac.uk. 2. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom. 5. University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 6. University College Dublin, Ireland. 7. Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom. 8. HRB Funded Irish Critical Care-Clinical Trials Network, St Vincent's University Hospital-Clinical Research Centre, University College Dublin, Ireland and the Alfred Hospital and Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care- Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The public and patients are primary contributors and beneficiaries of pandemic-relevant clinical research. However, their views on research participation during a pandemic have not been systematically studied. We aimed to understand public views regarding participation in clinical research during a hypothetical influenza pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This is an international cross-sectional survey. METHODS: We surveyed the views of nationally representative samples of people in Belgium, Poland, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, using a scenario-based instrument during the 2017 regional influenza season. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 6804 respondents, 5572 (81.8%) thought pandemic-relevant research was important, and 5089 (74.8%) thought 'special rules' should be applied to make this research feasible. The respondents indicated willingness to take part in lower risk (4715, 69.3%) and higher risk (3585, 52.7%) primary care and lower risk (4780, 70.3%) and higher risk (4113, 60.4%) intensive care unit (ICU) study scenarios. For primary care studies, most (3972, 58.4%) participants preferred standard enrolment procedures such as prospective written informed consent, but 2327 (34.2%) thought simplified procedures would be acceptable. For ICU studies, 2800 (41.2%) preferred deferred consent, and 2623 (38.6%) preferred prospective third-party consent. Greater knowledge about pandemics, trust in a health professional, trust in the government, therapeutic misconception and having had ICU experience as a patient or carer predicted increased willingness to participate in pandemic-relevant research. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates current public support for pandemic-relevant clinical research. Tailored information and initiatives to advance research literacy and maintain trust are required to support pandemic-relevant research participation and engagement.
OBJECTIVES: The public and patients are primary contributors and beneficiaries of pandemic-relevant clinical research. However, their views on research participation during a pandemic have not been systematically studied. We aimed to understand public views regarding participation in clinical research during a hypothetical influenza pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This is an international cross-sectional survey. METHODS: We surveyed the views of nationally representative samples of people in Belgium, Poland, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, using a scenario-based instrument during the 2017 regional influenza season. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 6804 respondents, 5572 (81.8%) thought pandemic-relevant research was important, and 5089 (74.8%) thought 'special rules' should be applied to make this research feasible. The respondents indicated willingness to take part in lower risk (4715, 69.3%) and higher risk (3585, 52.7%) primary care and lower risk (4780, 70.3%) and higher risk (4113, 60.4%) intensive care unit (ICU) study scenarios. For primary care studies, most (3972, 58.4%) participants preferred standard enrolment procedures such as prospective written informed consent, but 2327 (34.2%) thought simplified procedures would be acceptable. For ICU studies, 2800 (41.2%) preferred deferred consent, and 2623 (38.6%) preferred prospective third-party consent. Greater knowledge about pandemics, trust in a health professional, trust in the government, therapeutic misconception and having had ICU experience as a patient or carer predicted increased willingness to participate in pandemic-relevant research. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates current public support for pandemic-relevant clinical research. Tailored information and initiatives to advance research literacy and maintain trust are required to support pandemic-relevant research participation and engagement.
Authors: Sarah Tosoni; Indu Voruganti; Katherine Lajkosz; Shahbano Mustafa; Anne Phillips; S Joseph Kim; Rebecca K S Wong; Donald Willison; Carl Virtanen; Ann Heesters; Fei-Fei Liu Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 2.834
Authors: Prasad R Padala; Ashlyn M Jendro; C Heath Gauss; L Casey Orr; Kim T Dean; Kerrie B Wilson; Christopher M Parkes; Kalpana P Padala Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Patience A Muwanguzi; Paul Kutyabami; Charles Peter Osingada; Esther M Nasuuna; Freddy Eric Kitutu; Tom Denis Ngabirano; Joyce Nankumbi; Richard Muhindo; Lydia Kabiri; Mariam Namutebi; Racheal Nabunya; Noah Kiwanuka; Nelson Sewankambo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nicole Andrejek; Sabrina Hossain; Nour Schoueri-Mychasiw; Gul Saeed; Maral Zibaman; Angie K Puerto Niño; Samantha Meltzer-Brody; Richard K Silver; Simone N Vigod; Daisy R Singla Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 3.390