ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Long-Term Experiences of Health Care Providers Using Iris Scanning as an Identification Tool in a Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIris scanning has increasingly been used for biometric identification over the past decade, with continuous advancements and expanding applications. To better understand the acceptability of this technology, we report the long-term experiences of health care providers and frontline worker participants with iris scanning as an identification tool in the EBL2007 Ebola vaccine trial conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
objectiveThis study aims to document the long-term experiences of using iris scanning for identity verification throughout the vaccine trial.
methodsTwo years after the start of the EBL2007 vaccine trial (February to March 2022), 69 trial participants-including nurses, first aid workers, midwives, and community health workers-were interviewed through focus group discussions. Additionally, 13 in-depth individual interviews were conducted with physicians involved in the trial, iris scan operators, trial staff physicians, and trial participants who declined iris scanning. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify key themes.
resultsInitially, interviewees widely accepted the iris scan and viewed it as a distinctive tool for identifying participants in the EBL2007 vaccine trial. However, over time, perceptions became less favorable. Some participants expressed concerns that their vision had diminished shortly after using the tool and continued to decline until the end of the study. Others reported experiencing perceived vision loss long after the trial had concluded. However, no vision impairment was reported as an adverse event or assessed in the trial as being linked to the iris scan, which uses a previously certified safe infrared light for scanning.
conclusionsOur findings highlight the sustained acceptability and perceived high accuracy of the iris scan tool for uniquely identifying adult participants in a vaccine trial over time. Continued efforts to systematically disseminate and reinforce information about the function and safety of this technology are essential. Clearly presenting iris scanning as a safe procedure could help dispel misconceptions, concerns, and perceived risks among potential users in vaccine trials.
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.