Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30142500›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2018

Six dimensions of research trial acceptability: how much, what, when, in what circumstances, to whom and why?

Kate Gooding, Mackwellings Phiri, Ingrid Peterson, Michael Parker, Nicola Desmond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kate GoodingMalawi Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, College of Medicine, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi; Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK. Electronic address: kgooding@mlw.mw.
Mackwellings PhiriMalawi Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, College of Medicine, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi. Electronic address: mmphiri@mlw.mw.
Ingrid PetersonMalawi Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, College of Medicine, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi; Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK. Electronic address: IPeterson@som.umaryland.edu.
Michael ParkerNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. Electronic address: michael.parker@ethox.ox.ac.uk.
Nicola DesmondMalawi Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, College of Medicine, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi; Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK. Electronic address: Nicola.desmond@lstmed.ac.uk.

Funding

Epidemiology, Prevention, and Treatment of Influenza and Other Respiratory InfectU01IP000848 · IP · UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL · PI FRENCH, NEIL · 2014 to 2018
$4.3M
ACL HHS U01IP000848Wellcome Trust 096527
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethics guidelines emphasise that research should be acceptable to the people invited to take part. However, acceptability is subjective and dependent on context, complicating its assessment and use as an ethical standard. This paper examines the concept of acceptability in relation to parents' perspectives on a paediatric vaccine trial in Malawi. We examined decisions on participation and experiences of the trial through interviews with parents in 41 households invited to enrol their children and participant observation of trial processes. Fieldwork took place in Chikwawa, Southern Malawi from February-October 2016. Parents were not neatly split between those who saw the trial as acceptable and those who did not; instead there were mixed and changing feelings among parents who enrolled their children, and among those who withdrew or did not take part. Some parents agreed to participate but had concerns about the trial, while others expressed satisfaction with the trial but still did not take part. These experiences indicate substantial variation in the nature of acceptance. We describe these variations in relation to six dimensions of acceptability: how acceptable the trial is, what aspects are acceptable, changes over time, circumstances affecting acceptability, variations between people, and reasons for participation or non-participation. The findings illustrate the difficulty of determining whether a trial is sufficiently acceptable to potential participants. We suggest that clarifying definitions of acceptability and examining how acceptability varies in degree, between trial components, over time, and between people and contexts may help researchers generate more nuanced descriptions of acceptability that support responsive and ethical trial design.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMalawiMaleParentsPatient Acceptance of Health CareVaccinesVaccinesAcceptabilityCommunityEthicsMalawiMedical research

Identifiers

PMID30142500
PMCPMC7614255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.