ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2019
Picking and Choosing Among Phase I Trials : A Qualitative Examination of How Healthy Volunteers Understand Study Risks.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- More than a moment: Evolving decisions among eligible volunteers in phase 1 COVID-19 vaccine trials.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- How to Optimize Healthy Volunteer Screening and Enrolment in Clinical Trials: A Qualitative and Quantitative Approach to Evaluate Processes and Healthy Volunteers' Perceptions.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Decision making for invasive and non-invasive optional procedures within an acute HIV research cohort in Bangkok.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- Ethical Criteria for Improved Human Subject Protections in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Trials.Ethics & human research · 2022Article
- Healthy volunteers in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time.PloS one · 2021Article
- Speculating on Precarious Income: Finance Cultures and the Risky Strategies of Healthy Volunteers in Clinical Drug Trials.Journal of cultural economy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article empirically examines how healthy volunteers evaluate and make sense of the risks of phase I clinical drug trials. This is an ethically important topic because healthy volunteers are exposed to risk but can gain no medical benefit from their trial participation. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews with 178 healthy volunteers enrolled in various clinical trials, we found that participants focus on myriad characteristics of clinical trials when assessing risk and making enrolment decisions. These factors include the short-term and long-term effects; required medical procedures; the type of trial, including its design, therapeutic area of investigation, and dosage of the drug; the amount of compensation; and trust in the research clinic. In making determinations about the study risks, participants rely on information provided during the consent process, their own and others' experiences in clinical trials, and comparisons among studies. Our findings indicate that the informed consent process succeeds in communicating well about certain types of risk information while simultaneously creating lacunae that are problematically filled by participants through their collective experiences and assumptions about risk. We discuss the ethical implications of these findings and make recommendations for improving the consent process in healthy volunteer trials.
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.