ArticlePloS one2025
"We have to amplify what we saw at EBOVAC" - Assessing participant perceptions, attitudes, and acceptability of an ancillary care policy in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A mixed methods study.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn a vaccine trial conducted between 2019 and 2022 in Boende, a remote, resource-constrained area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, our research team developed an ancillary care (AC) policy to provide adequate care and follow-up for concomitant adverse events (AE), whether study-related or not. The trial aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of an Ebola vaccine regimen among approximately 700 healthcare providers and frontliners to strengthen outbreak preparedness in this Ebola-endemic region, where access to healthcare is severely limited by poverty, weak infrastructure, and an overstretched health system.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was used to assess participants' acceptability of the AC policy. First, participants with AE completed a questionnaire (1--5 scale; 6 questions on AC policy support, 4 on the consequences of no support, and an open comment field). Second, a telephone survey (1--3 scale; 3 questions evaluating the AC policy, 1 on unsupported AE and an open comment field) was conducted with participants, both with and without AE. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data analysis, while open comments were coded qualitatively. Third, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants who experienced a (serious) AE and either benefited from or did not benefit from the policy. Participants were selected using purposive and convenience sampling, and thematic analysis was performed.
resultsOf 185 individuals with AE, 290 surveys were collected, with 93.5% expressing (very) strong appreciation for the AC policy. In the telephone survey, all 311 respondents supported the AC policy and emphasized its importance, 88.1% indicated it addressed their medical needs, and 35.7% reported experiencing an AE not covered by the policy. The 17 interviews revealed three major themes: 1) Experiences with AE management and AC support; 2) Financial impact of (non-) support; 3) Expectations of AC support. Participants who received AC reported personal, medical, and financial benefits, but noted limitations, such as the scope and duration of support, variations in local healthcare practices, and administrative hurdles.
conclusionBoth quantitative and qualitative findings show high endorsement for the AC policy support, regardless of participants' personal use. This acceptability study highlights the importance of AC in clinical trials and comprehensive participant care in research.
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.