ArticlePloS one2026
"… Infections are not confined in labs…": Community engagement for Controlled Human Infection Studies: Opinions of researchers, bioethicists and research regulators in Uganda.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Controlled human infection studies play a critical role in advancing our knowledge of infectious diseases and developing therapeutics. However, these studies involve knowingly exposing research participants to pathogens, raising significant ethical, social, environmental and logistical concerns. Controlled human infection studies are being conducted in settings where individuals are economically disadvantaged and may have limited access to healthcare, education, and basic social amenities, making community engagement a central element in ensuring the ethical conduct of controlled human infection studies and the protection of participants' rights. In a cross-sectional qualitative study, we explored the views of research stakeholders on how to effectively engage local communities on controlled human infection studies. Twenty-seven key informant interviews were conducted with researchers, bioethics experts, research ethics committee members, and staff at national research regulatory bodies in Uganda between September 2023 - March 2024. A systematic inductive analysis approach was used. Due to the complexity and sensitivity of controlled human infection studies, findings reveal the necessity for early planning, adequate budgets and broad-based engagement using multiple approaches and activities. Research participants viewed the bottom-up approach as more appropriate for engaging communities. They also argued that meaningful community engagement should be a continuous process grounded in respect, justice and partnership, rather than merely a procedural or regulatory obligation. The acceptability and success of controlled human infection studies in low resource settings largely depends on effective intentional community engagement in the entire research process.
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.