ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2019
Informal professionalization of healthy participants in phase I clinical trials in Russia.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Stories like ours continue": A phenomenological exploration of the lived experiences of ex-serial clinical trial volunteers in South India.Dialogues in health · 2025Article
- Informed Consent in Clinical Studies Involving Human Participants: Ethical Insights of Medical Researchers in Germany and Poland.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Phase I trial compensation: How much do healthy volunteers actually earn from clinical trial enrollment?Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Ethics and etiquette in an emergency vaccine trial. The orchestration of compliance.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2020Article
- Commentary on Zvonareva et al.: Exploring the many meanings of "professional" in research participation.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious social science research has shown how some healthy phase I trial participants identify themselves as workers and rely on trials as a major source of income. The term "professionalization" has been used to denote this phenomenon. PURPOSE: We aim to examine a component of healthy trial participants' professionalization that has not yet been systematically studied: how repeat phase I trial participants develop and claim expertise that distinguishes them from others and makes them uniquely positioned to perform high-quality clinical trial labor. We also aim to explain the significance of these research results for protection of healthy participants in phase I trials.
methodsThis qualitative exploratory study was conducted in Russia, in two phase I trial units. It involved semi-structured interviews with 28 healthy trial participants with varying lengths of experience in trials, observations of work done in trial units, and interpretive conversations with investigative staff.
resultsInterviewed healthy individuals who repeatedly participate in phase I trials describe developing knowledge and skills that involve appreciating the meaning of trial procedures, coming up with techniques to efficiently follow them, organizing themselves and others in the course of a trial, and sharing tacit ways of doing trial work well with other less experienced participants. Our results suggest that a prerequisite for such expertise-centered professionalization is the emergence of a positive identity linked to seeing value in trial participation work. A crucial component of professionalization thus understood is the development of a work ethic that entails caring about results and being reliable partners for investigators. LIMITATIONS: The attitudes and behaviors presented in this article are not suggested to be universally shared among healthy trial participants, but rather represent a particular instance of professionalization that coexists with other views and tactics.
conclusionsA way of better protecting healthy trial participants begins with recognizing their skills, knowledge, and the centrality of the contribution they are making to pharmaceutical research. Currently, the expertise of experienced trial participants is recognized on the work floor only; therefore, the professionalization we described is informal. Yet, the informal professionalization process is inherently risky as it does not involve any change in the formal conditions of trial participants' work. Instituting formal measures for protecting healthy trial participants as skilled workers combined with recognition of their expertise is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.