ArticlePloS one2026
Balancing altruism, risk and ethics: Vietnamese students' views on human challenge studies.
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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHuman challenge studies (HCS) have been proposed to accelerate the development of health interventions and strengthen research capacity in low- and middle-income countries. However, implementation in settings such as Vietnam, where clinical care facilities and research capacity are limited and no specific regulatory framework for HCS exists, raises special ethical, social, and practical concerns. This study examined healthcare professional students' perceptions of and attitudes toward HCS, focusing on ethical considerations and factors associated with willingness to participate.
methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted as part of a longitudinal project, named SEED (2020-2024) among students at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Quantitative data was collected using a structured survey administered after engagement activities on HCS (n = 242). Qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions (n = 54) and in-depth interviews (n = 14). Findings were integrated using an explanatory mixed-methods approach.
resultsParticipants reported moderate familiarity with HCS and expressed cautious support. Acceptability of HCS was lower than that of clinical trials or observational studies, reflecting concerns related to intentional infection. Motivations for participation included altruism, perceived social value, and potential national benefits, particularly for endemic diseases. Willingness to participate was positively associated with assurances of participant safety, access to rescue treatment, long-term compensation for research-related harm, transparent informed consent processes, and trust in research institutions and regulatory oversight. Concerns about potential health risks, psychological burden, time commitment, fairness of compensation, stigma, and family influence were significantly highlighted.
conclusionMedical and public health students in Vietnam expressed conditional support for HCS, while balancing perceived benefits against ethical and practical concerns. Establishing clear governance mechanisms, risk mitigation strategies, and appropriate compensation frameworks will be critical for ensuring the ethical conduct and acceptability of HCS in similar settings.
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.