» Articles » PMID: 28960624

Talking to the People That Really Matter About Their Participation in Pandemic Clinical Research: A Qualitative Study in Four European Countries

Abstract

Background: Pandemics of new and emerging infectious diseases are unpredictable, recurrent events that rapidly threaten global health and security. We aimed to identify public views regarding provision of information and consent to participate in primary and critical care clinical research during a future influenza-like illness pandemic.

Methods: Descriptive-interpretive qualitative study, using focus groups (n = 10) and semi-structured interviews (n = 16), with 80 members of the public (>18 years) in Belgium, Spain, Poland and the UK. Local qualitative researchers followed a scenario-based topic guide to collect data. Data were transcribed verbatim, translated into English and subject to framework analysis.

Results: Public understandings of pandemics were shaped by personal factors (illness during the previous H1N1 pandemic, experience of life-threatening illness) and social factors (historical references, media, public health information). Informants appreciated safeguards provided by ethically robust research procedures, but current enrolment procedures were seen as a barrier. They proposed simplified enrolment processes for higher risk research and consent waiver for certain types of low-risk research. Decision making about research participation was influenced by contextual, research and personal factors. Informants generally either carefully weighed up various approaches to research participation or responded instinctively. They supported the principle of using routinely collected, anonymized clinical biological samples for research without explicit consent, but regarded this as less acceptable if researchers were motivated primarily by commercial gain.

Conclusions: This bottom-up approach to ascertaining public views on pandemic clinical research has identified support for more proportionate research protection procedures for publically funded, low-risk studies.

Citing Articles

No one listens to us, we know this, so we participated: Qualitative evidence from menstruation research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Junkins E, Chehab S, Lee K, Clancy K Womens Health (Lond). 2024; 20:17455057241285189.

PMID: 39382478 PMC: 11465293. DOI: 10.1177/17455057241285189.


Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Meskell P, Biesty L, Dowling M, Roche K, Meehan E, Glenton C Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023; 9:MR000065.

PMID: 37655964 PMC: 10472890. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000065.pub2.


A rapid review of community engagement and informed consent processes for adaptive platform trials and alternative design trials for public health emergencies.

Davies A, Ormel I, Bernier A, Harriss E, Mumba N, Gobat N Wellcome Open Res. 2023; 8:194.

PMID: 37654739 PMC: 10465998. DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.19318.1.


Health care professional's perceived stress levels and novel brief COPE-4 factor structure-based assessment of coping methods during COVID-19 pandemic in India: A multi-modal cross-sectional study.

Tirukkovalluri S, Rangasamy P, Ravi V, Julius A, Chatla C, Mahendiran B J Family Med Prim Care. 2022; 11(7):3891-3900.

PMID: 36387645 PMC: 9648295. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2612_20.


Patient consent preferences on sharing personal health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: "the more informed we are, the more likely we are to help".

Tosoni S, Voruganti I, Lajkosz K, Mustafa S, Phillips A, Kim S BMC Med Ethics. 2022; 23(1):53.

PMID: 35596210 PMC: 9122733. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-022-00790-z.


References
1.
Tuckett A . Part II. rigour in qualitative research: complexities and solutions. Nurse Res. 2005; 13(1):29-42. DOI: 10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.29.c5998. View

2.
Pope C, Mays N . Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995; 311(6996):42-5. PMC: 2550091. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.311.6996.42. View

3.
Kitzinger J . Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995; 311(7000):299-302. PMC: 2550365. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299. View

4.
Rojek A, Horby P . Modernising epidemic science: enabling patient-centred research during epidemics. BMC Med. 2016; 14(1):212. PMC: 5165716. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0760-x. View

5.
Gabriel L, Webb S . Preparing ICUs for pandemics. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013; 19(5):467-73. DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328364d645. View