ArticleBMC medicine2020
Exploring the acceptability of controlled human infection with SARSCoV2-a public consultation.
Article in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of a Buruli ulcer controlled human infection model: How, who, and why?PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Exploring the participant experience in controlled human infection model (CHIM) trials: A modified grounded theory study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Mixed-methods study assessing the acceptability and feasibility of Human Challenge Studies for Disease X in Healthy UK Adults in a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic setting.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Ethical acceptability of human challenge trials: Consultation with the US public and with research personnel.PloS one · 2024Article
- The role of public involvement in the design of the first SARS-CoV-2 human challenge study during an evolving pandemic.Epidemics · 2022Article
- Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults.Nature medicine · 2022Article
- The Development and Distribution of the COVID-19 Vaccine.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2022Article
- Ethical considerations around volunteer payments in a malaria human infection study in Kenya: an embedded empirical ethics study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- How do we engage people in testing for COVID-19? A rapid qualitative evaluation of a testing programme in schools, GP surgeries and a university.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Perceptions about controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies among members of ethics committees of Indian medical institutions: A qualitative exploration.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Undertaking Community Engagement for a Controlled Human Malaria Infection Study in Kenya: Approaches and Lessons Learnt.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Ethical and practical considerations arising from community consultation on implementing controlled human infection studies usingGlobal bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2022Article
- Vaccines against leishmaniasis: using controlled human infection models to accelerate development.Expert review of vaccines · 2021Article
- Assessing public perception of a sand fly biting study on the pathway to a controlled human infection model for cutaneous leishmaniasis.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Article
- A clinical study to optimise a sand fly biting protocol for use in a controlled human infection model of cutaneous leishmaniasis (the FLYBITE study).Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- A COVID-19 human viral challenge model. Learning from experience.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2020Review
- Rapid Antibody-Based COVID-19 Mass Surveillance: Relevance, Challenges, and Prospects in a Pandemic and Post-Pandemic World.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid development of an effective vaccine for SARSCoV2 is a global priority. A controlled human infection model (CHIM) would accelerate the efficacy assessment of candidate vaccines. This strategy would require deliberate exposure of volunteers to SARSCoV2 with no currently available treatment and a small but definite risk of serious illness or death. This raises complex questions about the social and ethical acceptability of risk to individuals, given the potential benefit to the wider population, and as such, a study cannot be done without public involvement. We conducted a structured public consultation with 57 individuals aged 20-40 years to understand public attitudes to a CHIM, and pre-requisites for enrolment. The overall response to this strategy was positive, and many would volunteer altruistically. Carefully controlled infection is viewed as safer than natural exposure to wild virus. The prolonged social isolation required for the proposed CHIM is considered an obstacle but not insurmountable, with reasonable compensation and supportive care. Given the significant level of public interest, a CHIM should be done as open science with regular, controlled dissemination of information into the public domain. Importantly, there was a strong view that the final decision whether to conduct a CHIM should be in the hands of qualified and experienced clinician-scientists and the authorities.
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.