ArticlePloS one2024
Ethical acceptability of human challenge trials: Consultation with the US public and with research personnel.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human challenge trials (HCTs) may accelerate the development of treatments and vaccines, and deliver novel insights into the course and consequences of infection. However, HCTs are contentious because they involve purposely exposing volunteers to infection. Consultation with the public and other stakeholders is essential for understanding how HCTs can be most ethically and acceptably pursued. Previous research has found public support for COVID-19 HCTs, but little research has considered public attitudes towards HCTs in principle and the various factors making a trial more or less acceptable. Empirical data on the attitudes of research personnel is also missing. We generated an online survey covering overarching support/opposition towards HCTs, as well as factors of importance for deciding whether or not an HCT is ethically acceptable. Our sample of the US public represents the responses of 1500 participants sampled via Prolific, poststratified to be representative of the general US adult population. We additionally collected a convenience sample of 33 research personnel engaged in phase III clinical trials for infectious diseases. Estimates for the US public suggest substantial support for using HCTs to develop new vaccines, new treatments, and knowledge about diseases, with similarly high support among research personnel. The most important factors in determining acceptability of an HCT were the risk to participants and their comprehension of this risk. The general public, in particular, appear relatively unconcerned about participants' motivations, and favor higher payment in accordance with risk. This study adds to a growing body of public consultation surrounding HCTs, demonstrating high levels of support for their use in principle-not just in relation to COVID-19. The importance attributed to various ethically-relevant factors can help in designing HCTs with high public acceptance.
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.