Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30647042›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Qualitative study investigating the underlying motivations of healthy participants in phase I clinical trials.

Kerry J Manton, Cassandra S Gauld, Katherine M White, Paul M Griffin, Suzanne L Elliott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Why do healthy volunteers participate in clinical trials?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022
    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.

Kerry J MantonSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Cassandra S GauldInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Katherine M WhiteInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Paul M GriffinQ-Pharm, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Suzanne L ElliottSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIf patients are to reap the benefits of continued drug development, an understanding of why healthy participants take part in phase I clinical trials is imperative. The current study aimed to explore the nature of these underlying motivations which may, in turn, improve the overall participant experience and assist in the development of more effective recruitment and retention strategies.

designThis study used a qualitative design based on the theory of planned behaviour. Specifically, it explored healthy participants' underlying behavioural, control and normative beliefs which influence their participation in phase I clinical trials.

settingThis study took place at a company that specialises in conducting phase I and phase II clinical trials in the Australian state of Queensland.

participantsParticipants (n=31) were either currently undergoing a phase I clinical trial or had previously taken part in a phase I clinical trial.

resultsResults showed that the motivations were varied and not solely centred on financial gains. Reported advantages of participation included altruism, while inconvenience was most often reported as a disadvantage. Friends were reported as those most likely to approve, while one's mother was reported as most likely to disapprove. Having a suitable time frame/flexible scheduling and feeling comfortable taking part in the trial were both the most commonly reported facilitators, while inflexible scheduling/time commitment was the most commonly reported barrier.

conclusionsPractical implications included the need for organisations involved in clinical trials to be mindful of inflexible scheduling and exploring the possibility of making educational materials available to family members who may be concerned about the risks associated with participation. Overall, it is anticipated that the results of this study will improve the understanding of factors that influence phase I clinical trial participation which may, ultimately, help develop new therapeutics to improve patient health.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicMotivationAdultAgedAltruismFemaleFocus GroupsHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchQueenslandRemunerationTime FactorsYoung Adulthealthy volunteersmotivationsphase I clinical trialqualitativetheory of planned behaviour

Identifiers

PMID30647042
PMCPMC6340482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.