Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32024497›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2020

Stakeholder views on the acceptability of human infection studies in Malawi.

Blessings M Kapumba, Kondwani Jambo, Jamie Rylance, Markus Gmeiner, Rodrick Sambakunsi, Michael Parker, Stephen B Gordon, Kate Gooding

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Shigella-Controlled Human Infection Models: Current and Future Perspectives.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Blessings M KapumbaMalawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre, 3, Malawi. bkapumba@mlw.mw.ORCID 0000-0002-8210-3454
Kondwani JamboMalawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre, 3, Malawi.
Jamie RylanceMalawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre, 3, Malawi.
Markus GmeinerMalawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre, 3, Malawi.
Rodrick SambakunsiMalawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre, 3, Malawi.
Michael ParkerWellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and Ethox Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stephen B GordonMalawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre, 3, Malawi.
Kate GoodingMalawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, P.O. Box 30096, Chichiri, Blantyre, 3, Malawi.
University of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T008822/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 210554/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman infection studies (HIS) are valuable in vaccine development. Deliberate infection, however, creates challenging questions, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where HIS are new and ethical challenges may be heightened. Consultation with stakeholders is needed to support contextually appropriate and acceptable study design. We examined stakeholder perceptions about the acceptability and ethics of HIS in Malawi, to inform decisions about planned pneumococcal challenge research and wider understanding of HIS ethics in LMICs.

methodsWe conducted 6 deliberative focus groups and 15 follow-up interviews with research staff, medical students, and community representatives from rural and urban Blantyre. We also conducted 5 key informant interviews with clinicians, ethics committee members, and district health government officials.

resultsStakeholders perceived HIS research to have potential population health benefits, but they also had concerns, particularly related to the safety of volunteers and negative community reactions. Acceptability depended on a range of conditions related to procedures for voluntary and informed consent, inclusion criteria, medical care or support, compensation, regulation, and robust community engagement. These conditions largely mirror those in existing guidelines for HIS and biomedical research in LMICs. Stakeholder perceptions pointed to potential tensions, for example, balancing equity, safety, and relevance in inclusion criteria.

conclusionsOur findings suggest HIS research could be acceptable in Malawi, provided certain conditions are in place. Ongoing assessment of participant experiences and stakeholder perceptions will be required to strengthen HIS research during development and roll-out.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBiomedical ResearchDeveloping CountriesFocus GroupsHumansInformed ConsentInterviews as TopicMalawiPneumococcal VaccinesPneumonia, PneumococcalResearch DesignPneumococcal VaccinesAcceptabilityEthicsHuman infection studiesMalawiPneumococcal

Identifiers

PMID32024497
PMCPMC7003337
OpenAlexW3012771818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.