ArticleBMJ open2020
Money-oriented risk-takers or deliberate decision-makers: a cross-sectional survey study of participants in controlled human infection trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motivations and experiences in controlled human infection trials vs. phase I clinical trials: a survey study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- 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
- What motivates SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trial participants? A pre- and post-participation survey study.Trials · 2024Observational
- Ethical approval for controlled human infectious model clinical trial protocols - A workshop report.Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization · 2024Article
- Volunteering for Infection: Participant Perspectives on a Hepatitis C Virus Controlled Human Infection Model.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Article
- Ethical considerations around volunteer payments in a malaria human infection study in Kenya: an embedded empirical ethics study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Ethical and practical considerations arising from community consultation on implementing controlled human infection studies usingGlobal bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2022Article
- Characterizing altruistic motivation in potential volunteers for SARS-CoV-2 challenge trials.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Should practice and policy be revised to allow for risk-proportional payment to human challenge study participants?Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Ethics & utility of controlled human infection studies (CHIS) in low- & middle-income countries.The Indian journal of medical researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantitatively investigate the motivations, decision-making and experience of participants in controlled human infection (CHI) studies.
designCross-sectional descriptive survey study.
settingPrevious participants of CHI studies at the Leiden Controlled Human Infection Center, control group of students from Leiden University.
participants61 previous participants and 156 controls. MEASUREMENTS: Ranking of motivational and decisional factors, risk propensity score and multiple-choice questions on experience of trial participation and ethical aspects of CHI studies.
resultsMotivating factors for participants were contributing to science (81%), contributing to research that may benefit developing countries (72%) and the financial compensation (63%). For 51% of participants, a reason other than financial compensation was the most important motivational factor. Participants considered trust in the study team (70%), time investment (63%), severity of symptoms (54%), chance of developing symptoms (54%) and whether it is an easy way to make money (54%) in their decision to participate. Most CHI participants (84%) were proud of their participation, would advise others to participate (89%) and would participate in a similar trial again (85%). CHI participants had a higher risk propensity score than students (estimated difference 0.9, p<0.001).
conclusionAlthough financial compensation is important, the motivations for participants in a CHI study are diverse and participants make a balanced appraisal of risks and burden before participating.
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.