Cargando…

Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study

Background: Human challenge studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy volunteers to an infectious micro-organism in a highly controlled and monitored way. They are used to understand infectious diseases and have contributed to the development of vaccines. In early 2020, the UK started explo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barker, Caroline, Collet, Katharine, Gbesemete, Diane, Piggin, Maria, Watson, Daniella, Pristerà, Philippa, Lawerence, Wendy, Smith, Emma, Bahrami-Hessari, Michael, Johnson, Halle, Baker, Katherine, Qavi, Ambar, McGrath, Carmel, Chiu, Christopher, Read, Robert C., Ward, Helen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8921687/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35321005
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17516.1
_version_ 1784669373419487232
author Barker, Caroline
Collet, Katharine
Gbesemete, Diane
Piggin, Maria
Watson, Daniella
Pristerà, Philippa
Lawerence, Wendy
Smith, Emma
Bahrami-Hessari, Michael
Johnson, Halle
Baker, Katherine
Qavi, Ambar
McGrath, Carmel
Chiu, Christopher
Read, Robert C.
Ward, Helen
author_facet Barker, Caroline
Collet, Katharine
Gbesemete, Diane
Piggin, Maria
Watson, Daniella
Pristerà, Philippa
Lawerence, Wendy
Smith, Emma
Bahrami-Hessari, Michael
Johnson, Halle
Baker, Katherine
Qavi, Ambar
McGrath, Carmel
Chiu, Christopher
Read, Robert C.
Ward, Helen
author_sort Barker, Caroline
collection PubMed
description Background: Human challenge studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy volunteers to an infectious micro-organism in a highly controlled and monitored way. They are used to understand infectious diseases and have contributed to the development of vaccines. In early 2020, the UK started exploring the feasibility of establishing a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2. Given the significant public interest and the complexity of the potential risks and benefits, it is vital that public views are considered in the design and approval of any such study and that investigators and ethics boards remain accountable to the public. Methods: Mixed methods study comprising online surveys conducted with 2,441 UK adults and in-depth virtual focus groups with 57 UK adults during October 2020 to explore the public’s attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK. Results: There was overall agreement across the surveys and focus groups that a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 should take place in the UK. Transparency of information, trust and the necessity to provide clear information on potential risks to study human challenge study participants were important. The perceived risks of taking part included the risk of developing long-term effects from COVID, impact on personal commitments and mental health implications of isolation. There were a number of practical realities to taking part that would influence a volunteer’s ability to participate (e.g. Wi-Fi, access to exercise, outside space and work, family and pet commitments). Conclusions: The results identified practical considerations for teams designing human challenge studies. Recommendations were grouped: 1) messaging to potential study participants, 2) review of the protocol and organisation of the study, and 3) more broadly, making the study more inclusive and relevant. This study highlights the value of public consultation in research, particularly in fields attracting public interest and scrutiny .
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8921687
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89216872022-03-22 Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study Barker, Caroline Collet, Katharine Gbesemete, Diane Piggin, Maria Watson, Daniella Pristerà, Philippa Lawerence, Wendy Smith, Emma Bahrami-Hessari, Michael Johnson, Halle Baker, Katherine Qavi, Ambar McGrath, Carmel Chiu, Christopher Read, Robert C. Ward, Helen Wellcome Open Res Research Article Background: Human challenge studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy volunteers to an infectious micro-organism in a highly controlled and monitored way. They are used to understand infectious diseases and have contributed to the development of vaccines. In early 2020, the UK started exploring the feasibility of establishing a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2. Given the significant public interest and the complexity of the potential risks and benefits, it is vital that public views are considered in the design and approval of any such study and that investigators and ethics boards remain accountable to the public. Methods: Mixed methods study comprising online surveys conducted with 2,441 UK adults and in-depth virtual focus groups with 57 UK adults during October 2020 to explore the public’s attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK. Results: There was overall agreement across the surveys and focus groups that a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 should take place in the UK. Transparency of information, trust and the necessity to provide clear information on potential risks to study human challenge study participants were important. The perceived risks of taking part included the risk of developing long-term effects from COVID, impact on personal commitments and mental health implications of isolation. There were a number of practical realities to taking part that would influence a volunteer’s ability to participate (e.g. Wi-Fi, access to exercise, outside space and work, family and pet commitments). Conclusions: The results identified practical considerations for teams designing human challenge studies. Recommendations were grouped: 1) messaging to potential study participants, 2) review of the protocol and organisation of the study, and 3) more broadly, making the study more inclusive and relevant. This study highlights the value of public consultation in research, particularly in fields attracting public interest and scrutiny . F1000 Research Limited 2022-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8921687/ /pubmed/35321005 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17516.1 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Barker C et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Barker, Caroline
Collet, Katharine
Gbesemete, Diane
Piggin, Maria
Watson, Daniella
Pristerà, Philippa
Lawerence, Wendy
Smith, Emma
Bahrami-Hessari, Michael
Johnson, Halle
Baker, Katherine
Qavi, Ambar
McGrath, Carmel
Chiu, Christopher
Read, Robert C.
Ward, Helen
Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study
title Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study
title_full Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study
title_fullStr Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study
title_full_unstemmed Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study
title_short Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study
title_sort public attitudes to a human challenge study with sars-cov-2: a mixed-methods study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8921687/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35321005
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17516.1
work_keys_str_mv AT barkercaroline publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT colletkatharine publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT gbesemetediane publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT pigginmaria publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT watsondaniella publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT pristeraphilippa publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT lawerencewendy publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT smithemma publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT bahramihessarimichael publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT johnsonhalle publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT bakerkatherine publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT qaviambar publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT mcgrathcarmel publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT chiuchristopher publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT readrobertc publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy
AT wardhelen publicattitudestoahumanchallengestudywithsarscov2amixedmethodsstudy