Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30457992›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2018

Healthy volunteers' perceptions of risk in US Phase I clinical trials: A mixed-methods study.

Jill A Fisher, Lisa McManus, Marci D Cottingham, Julianne M Kalbaugh, Megan M Wood, Torin Monahan, Rebecca L Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Sacrificial Labour: Social Inequality, Identity Work, and the Damaging Pursuit of Elusive Futures.Work, employment & society : a journal of the British Sociological Association · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Appraising Harm in Phase I Trials: Healthy Volunteers' Accounts of Adverse Events.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019
    Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Jill A FisherDepartment of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9487-1493
Lisa McManusDepartment of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Marci D CottinghamDepartment of Sociology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3519-4100
Julianne M KalbaughDepartment of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6045-9011
Megan M WoodDepartment of Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Torin MonahanDepartment of Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Rebecca L WalkerDepartment of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

Healthy Volunteers as Model Organisms: Comparative Research Ethics and Policy for Phase I trialsR01GM099952 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI FISHER, JILL A, WALKER, REBECCA · 2012 to 2020
$3.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM099952
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited research on healthy volunteers' perceptions of the risks of Phase I clinical trials. In order to contribute empirically to long-standing ethical concerns about healthy volunteers' involvement in drug development, it is crucial to assess how these participants understand trial risks. The objectives of this study were to investigate (1) participants' views of the overall risks of Phase I trials, (2) their views of the risk of personally being harmed in a trial, and (3) how risk perceptions vary across participants' clinical trial history and sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS AND

findingsWe qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed semi-structured interviews conducted with 178 healthy volunteers who had participated in a diverse range of Phase I trials in the United States. Participants had collective experience in a reported 1,948 Phase I trials (mean = 10.9; median = 5), and they were interviewed as part of a longitudinal study of healthy volunteers' risk perceptions, their trial enrollment decisions, and their routine health behaviors. Participants' qualitative responses were coded, analyzed, and subsequently quantified in order to assess correlations between their risk perceptions and demographics, such as their race/ethnicity, gender, age, educational attainment, employment status, and household income. We found that healthy volunteers often viewed the overall risks of Phase I trials differently than their own personal risk of harm. The majority of our participants thought that Phase I trials were medium, high, or extremely high risk (118 of 178), but most nonetheless felt that they were personally safe from harm (97 of 178). We also found that healthy volunteers in their first year of clinical trial participation, racial and ethnic minority participants, and Hispanic participants tended to view the overall trial risks as high (respectively, Jonckheere-Terpstra, -2.433, p = 0.015; Fisher exact test, p = 0.016; Fisher exact test, p = 0.008), but these groups did not differ in regard to their perceptions of personal risk of harm (respectively, chi-squared, 3.578, p = 0.059; chi-squared, 0.845, p = 0.358; chi-squared, 1.667, p = 0.197). The main limitation of our study comes from quantitatively aggregating data from in-depth interviews, which required the research team to interpret participants' nonstandardized risk narratives.

conclusionsOur study demonstrates that healthy volunteers are generally aware of and reflective about Phase I trial risks. The discrepancy in healthy volunteers' views of overall and personal risk sheds light on why healthy volunteers might continue to enroll in clinical trials, even when they view trials on the whole as risky.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient SelectionPerceptionAdolescentAdultClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicComprehensionFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansInformed ConsentInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchResearch Subjects

Identifiers

PMID30457992
PMCPMC6245523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.