Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39501157›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Motivations for enrollment in a COVID-19 ring-based post-exposure prophylaxis trial: qualitative examination of participant experiences.

Julien Brisson, Rebecca Balasa, Andrea Bowra, David C Hill, Aarti S Doshi, Darrell H S Tan, Amaya Perez-Brumer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Julien BrissonDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 5th Floor, Room 554, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada. j.brisson@utoronto.ca.
Rebecca BalasaDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 5th Floor, Room 554, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada.
Andrea BowraDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 5th Floor, Room 554, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada.
David C HillDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 5th Floor, Room 554, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada.
Aarti S DoshiDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 5th Floor, Room 554, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada.
Darrell H S TanDivision of Infectious Diseases, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Amaya Perez-BrumerDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 5th Floor, Room 554, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada.

Funding

CIHR Global Health Intervention Justice, Tier 2 #2021-00132CIHR OV4-170652
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRing-based studies are a novel research design commonly used for research involving infectious diseases: contacts of newly infected individuals form a ring that is targeted for interventions (e.g., vaccine, post-exposure prophylaxis). Given the novelty of the research design, it is critical to obtain feedback from participants on their experiences with ring-based studies to help with the development of future trials.

methodsIn 2021, we conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with adult participants of a COVID-19 ring-based post-exposure prophylaxis trial based in Canada. We applied a purposive sampling approach and electronically recruited participants who tested positive for COVID-19 (Index Cases) and either agreed or declined for the study team to contact their potentially exposed contacts. We also included individuals who participated in the trial after being potentially exposed to an Index Case (known as Ring Members), and those who declined to participate after potential exposure. The methodological design of semi-structured interviews allowed participants to share their opinions and experiences in the trial (e.g., elements they enjoyed and disliked regarding their participation in the study).

resultsThe majority of participants in our study were women (62%) and the average age was 37.3 years (SD = 13.2). Overall, participants reported being highly satisfied with partaking in the ring-based trial. Notably, no substantial complaints were voiced about the trial's design involving contact after exposure. The most common reason of satisfaction was the knowledge of potentially helping others by advancing knowledge for a greater cause (e.g., development of potential treatment to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection). Other reasons were curiosity about participating in a trial, and an activity to fill free time during the pandemic. A central element of dislike was confusion about instructions with the trial (e.g., independent at home SARS-CoV-2 testing). Additionally, maintaining confidentiality was a crucial concern for participants, who sought assurance that their data would not be shared beyond the scope of the study.

conclusionsOur results have the potential to inform future research, including clinical trials such as ring-based studies, by incorporating insights from participants' experiences into the development of study protocols. Despite some protocol-related challenges, participants expressed high satisfaction, driven by the desire to advance science and potentially aid others.

Indexed as

COVID-19MotivationPost-Exposure ProphylaxisQualitative ResearchSARS-CoV-2AdultCanadaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationCanadaCOVID-19ExperienceResearch ethicsResearch participationRing-based studySARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID39501157
PMCPMC11536907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.