Cited by 64Ethics in Clinical ResearchCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Conducting Clinical Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigator and Participant Perspectives

Open access
Padala, Prasad R, Jendro, Ashlyn M, Padala, Kalpana P·2020·JMIR Public Health and Surveillance

Published 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/18887

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  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

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
Published
2020-04-06
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
e18887
ISSN
2369-2960 (ISSN-L)
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
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