ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Experiences, perceptions and ethical considerations of the malaria infection study in Thailand.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
A Clinical Study to Assess the Feasibility of a Controlled Human Plasmodium Vivax Malaria Infection Model Through Sporozoite Infection in Thai Adults
A Clinical Study to Assess the Safety and Feasibility of Controlled Blood-stage Plasmodium Vivax Human Malaria Infection Through Experimental Inoculation of Cryopreserved Infected Erythrocytes in Healthy Thai Adults
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is India ready for controlled human infection studies? A narrative review of stakeholders' perceptions & regulatory preparedness.Dialogues in health · 2026Review
- Willingness to accept paediatric blood sample collection for clinical research purposes in Nepal: a qualitative study.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Balancing altruism, risk and ethics: Vietnamese students' views on human challenge studies.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThailand has made significant progress in malaria control efforts in the past decade, with a decline in the number of reported cases. However, due to cross-border movements over the past 5 years, reported malaria cases in Thailand have risen. The Malaria Infection Study in Thailand (MIST) involves deliberate infection of healthy volunteers with Plasmodium vivax malaria parasites, and the assessment of the efficacy of potential vaccine and drug candidates in order to understand acquired protection against malaria parasites.
methodsThis paper drew from ethics and social science qualitative study called MIST-ETHICS embedded within the MIST studies. MIST-ETHICS aimed to describe and understand the experiences, perceptions and ethical considerations of the MIST studies. Data were obtained from semi-structured interviews and a focus group discussion. A total of 46 participants participated in MIST-ETHICS .
resultsThree major themes emerged: experiences and perceptions of MIST, reasons for joining MIST, and ethical considerations. We found that although compensation was a motivation for participation, this was secondary to it being beneficial to self (health checks; link to health networks; building merit) and others (medical research contribution; altruism). Participants expressed varied opinions regarding the requirement of a university degree as one of the inclusion criteria for MIST.
conclusionsOur study revealed widespread concerns about long-term health effects and safety. Ethical considerations, including obtaining valid informed consent and ensuring participant inclusivitiy, were deem essential. Despite some debate regarding eligibility criteria, most participants agreed that the informed consent process was robust, accompanied by a strong sense of responsibility to contribute to the greater good. We emphasize the importance of continuously gathering participants' feedback for quality control, such as improving information materials to clarify the purpose of initial phases, their contributing to later phases, and the rationale behind each selection criterion.
trial registrationThis manuscript is part of the clinical trials registered under ClinicalTrials.gov IDs NCT04083508 (MIST1) registered on 5 Sep 2019 and NCT05071079 (MIST2) registered on 28 July 2021. However, the manuscript pertains to a qualitative study that does not require trial registration.
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.