Conducting Clinical Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigator and Participant Perspectives
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
As the medical landscape changes daily with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical researchers are caught off-guard and are forced to make decisions on research visits in their ongoing clinical trials. Although there is some guidance from local and national organizations, the principal investigator (PI) is ultimately responsible for determining the risk-benefit ratio of conducting, rescheduling, or cancelling each research visit. The PI should take into consideration the ethical principles of research, local/national guidance, the community risk of the pandemic in their locale, staffing strain, and the risk involved to each participant, to ultimately decide on the course of action. While balancing the rights and protection of the human subject, we seldom examine patients’ views and opinions about their scheduled research visit(s). This article discusses the ethical principles of beneficence and autonomy in helping the decision-making process. We discuss ways to weigh-in local and national guidance, staffing strain, and institutional support into the decision-making process and outline potential changes needed for regulatory bodies depending on the decision. Further, we discuss the need to weigh-in the individual risk-benefit ratio for each participant and present a decision tree to navigate this complex process. Finally, we examine participant and caregiver perspectives on their fears, sense of preparedness, and factors that they consider before deciding whether to keep or postpone the research appointments. This entry also provides PIs ways to support their research participants in both scenarios, including provision of psychological support.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Our study was disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic, which was the case for clinical research in general.
“Finally, our study was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which was the case for clinical research in general (Padala et al., 2020; Sathian et al., 2020).”
From Feasibility, Acceptability and Preliminary Efficacy of Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Autistic Adults without Intellectual Disability: A Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as Padala et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30460-8 · Cited by 16,378 · see citing works
Wang, C., Pan, R., Wan, X., Tan, Y., Xu, L., Ho, C. S., & Ho, R. C. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17051729 · Cited by 9,923 · see citing works
Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614568352 · Cited by 6,043 · see citing works
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., et al. (2019) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2019.07.005 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [3]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020-03-17 Coronavirus (COVID-19) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html 34009769
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bemmouna, D., Coutelle, R., Weibel, S., & Weiner, L. (2022) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-021-05317-w · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Participant and Caregiver Perspectives on Clinical Research During Covid-19 Pandemic.
Padala, P. R., Jendro, A. M., Gauss, C. H., Orr, L. C., Dean, K. T., Wilson, K. B., Parkes, C. M., & Padala, K. P. (2020) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.16500 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Self-citationShear, D., Harrison, L. E., O’Brien, S., Khazendar, Z., Lyons, S., Morgan, J. J., Chan, S. K., Feinstein, A. B., & Simons, L. E. (2022) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/ajp.0000000000001040 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Padala, P. R., Jendro, A. M., & Padala, K. P.
- Affiliations
- Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Padala, Prasad R
- Venue
- JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2020-04-06
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e18887
- ISSN
- 2369-2960 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7141248
- OpenAlex
- W3014137121
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 19
- FWCI
- 11.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01 RX002638, I01 RX002961)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, clinical trials, risk-benefit assessment, participant perceptions, caregiver perspectives, beneficence, autonomy, research ethics, regulatory guidelines, decision tree
- MeSH terms
- Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Humans, Medical Staff, Pneumonia, Viral, Research Personnel, Caregivers, Coronavirus Infections, Risk Assessment, 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