CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

What the public think about participation in medical research during an influenza pandemic: an international cross-sectional survey.

Open access
Gobat, N., Butler, C.C., Mollison, J., Francis, N.A., Gal, M., Harris, V., Webb, S.A.R., Byrne, J.-P. +4 more·2019·Public Health
DOI 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.07.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives The public and patients are primary contributors and beneficiaries of pandemic-relevant clinical research. However, their views on research participation during a pandemic have not been systematically studied. We aimed to understand public views regarding participation in clinical research during a hypothetical influenza pandemic.Study design This is an international cross-sectional survey.Methods We surveyed the views of nationally representative samples of people in Belgium, Poland, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, using a scenario-based instrument during the 2017 regional influenza season. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted.Results Of the 6804 respondents, 5572 (81.8%) thought pandemic-relevant research was important, and 5089 (74.8%) thought 'special rules' should be applied to make this research feasible. The respondents indicated willingness to take part in lower risk (4715, 69.3%) and higher risk (3585, 52.7%) primary care and lower risk (4780, 70.3%) and higher risk (4113, 60.4%) intensive care unit (ICU) study scenarios. For primary care studies, most (3972, 58.4%) participants preferred standard enrolment procedures such as prospective written informed consent, but 2327 (34.2%) thought simplified procedures would be acceptable. For ICU studies, 2800 (41.2%) preferred deferred consent, and 2623 (38.6%) preferred prospective third-party consent. Greater knowledge about pandemics, trust in a health professional, trust in the government, therapeutic misconception and having had ICU experience as a patient or carer predicted increased willingness to participate in pandemic-relevant research.Conclusions Our study indicates current public support for pandemic-relevant clinical research. Tailored information and initiatives to advance research literacy and maintain trust are required to support pandemic-relevant research participation and engagement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.07.005

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A cross-sectional survey found that 82% of patients (n = 6804) believed medical research should be conducted during epidemics, with trust in both the health professionals and government being cited as important for willingness to participate in research.

    “A cross-sectional survey found that 82% of patients (n = 6804) believed medical research should be conducted during epidemics [15] with trust in both the health professionals and government being cited as important for willingness to participate in research.”

    From Legacy lessons from the COVID-19 era to improve trial participation and retention: Views from trial participants, PPIE contributors and trial staff across the NIHR portfolio (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 36

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. [19]19. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 2015; 70 (2): 195-217. 344
  2. [6]6. of an Emerging Influenza Pandemic. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2018; 67 (3): 341-9. 348
  3. [2]2. Emergency Response. New England Journal of Medicine 2013; 368 (13): 1251-5. 352
  4. [4]4. Emerging Infectious Disease journal 2016; 22 (6). 354
  5. [8]8. 2018; 4 (2): 00046-2018. 358
  6. [10]10. multiple treatments. JAMA 2015; 313 (16): 1619-20. 360
  7. [12]12. Clinical Research. Critical Care Medicine 2018; 46 (3): 442-6. 362
  8. [2]2. pandemic research: a province wide, cross-sectional survey. Critical Care Medicine 2013; 41 (4): 1009364
  9. [6]6. expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 2018; 368
  10. [7]7. 21 (1): 387-95. 369
  11. [9]9. in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness. 371
  12. [10]10. Trials 2015; 16 : 591. 372
  13. [13]13. Patients, Research and Clinical Practice. PLoS ONE 2016; 11 (3): e0152509. 375
  14. [19]19. American Thoracic Society 2014; 11 (5): 777-83. 381
  15. [3]3. Biosecurity & Bioterrorism 2007; 5 (1): 8-25. 388
  16. [5]5. pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public's perspectives. BMC Public Health 2012; 12 : 241. 390
  17. [12]12. for rapid activation. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2015; 19 (16): 1-78, vii-viii. 397
  18. [15]15. the FLU-CATs Study. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2015; 19 (89): 1-132. 400
  19. [20]20. 9 (6): 748-61. 405
  20. [22]22. Health 1989; 79 (8): 1053-5. 407
  21. [2]2. phase II AIDS vaccine trial. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) 2001; 27 (3): 409
  22. [10]10. Effectiveness, and Learning Health Care. New England Journal of Medicine 2014; 370 (8): 766-8. 417
  23. [14]14. randomized, controlled trials? N Engl J Med 1999; 340 : 804-7. 421
  24. [16]16. Informed Consent?: A National Survey. Annals of internal medicine 2015; 163 (5): 356-64. 423
  25. [18]18. low-risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain. British journal of clinical pharmacology 2017; 83 (9): 1921425
  26. [4]4. and of the Council In: Union E, editor. Official Journal of the European Union: European Union; 2014. 434
  27. [6]6. biological samples in biomedical research: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open 2013; 3 (8): e003056. 436
  28. [9]9. 3 (8): e003022. 439
  29. [12]12. 2017; 12 (9): e0184224. 442 443

Authors
Gobat, N., Butler, C. C., Mollison, J., Francis, N. A., Gal, M., Harris, V., Webb, S. A. R., Byrne, J.-P., Watkins, A., Sukumar, P., Hood, K., & Nichol, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Gobat, N.
ORCID
Venue
Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
177
Pages
80-94
ISSN
0033-3506 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.puhe.2019.07.005
OpenAlex
W2965937226
Cited by
36
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9
FWCI
5.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
European Union Seventh Framework Programme (602525)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
research participation, pandemic influenza, informed consent, deferred consent, therapeutic misconception, trust in healthcare providers, public trust in government, research literacy, willingness to participate, primary care research, research ethics
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Community Participation, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Influenza, Human, Male, Middle Aged, Public Opinion, Biomedical Research, Internationality, Young Adult, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review