COVID-19 clinical trials: who is likely to participate and why?

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kimberly A Fisher, Mara M Epstein, Ngoc Nguyen, Hassan Fouayzi, Sybil Crawford, Benjamin P Linas, Kathleen M Mazor
{"title":"COVID-19 clinical trials: who is likely to participate and why?","authors":"Kimberly A Fisher, Mara M Epstein, Ngoc Nguyen, Hassan Fouayzi, Sybil Crawford, Benjamin P Linas, Kathleen M Mazor","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To identify factors associated with willingness to participate in a COVID-19 clinical trial and reasons for and against participating. <b>Materials & methods:</b> We surveyed Massachusetts (MA, USA) residents online using the Dynata survey platform and via phone using random digit dialing between October and November 2021. Respondents were asked to imagine they were hospitalized with COVID-19 and invited to participate in a treatment trial. We assessed willingness to participate by asking, \"Which way are you leaning\" and why. We used multivariate logistic regression to model factors associated with leaning toward participation. Open-ended responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. <b>Results:</b> Of 1071 respondents, 65.6% leaned toward participating. Multivariable analyses revealed college-education (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.27), trust in the healthcare system (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.58) and relying on doctors (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.45, 2.17) and family or friends (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.54) to make health decisions were significantly associated with leaning toward participating. Respondents with lower health literacy (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.91) and who identify as Black (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.68), Hispanic (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.98), or republican (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.97) were significantly less likely to lean toward participating. Common reasons for participating included helping others, benefitting oneself and deeming the study low risk. Common reasons for leaning against were deeming the study high risk, disliking experimental treatments and not wanting to be a guinea pig. <b>Conclusion:</b> Our finding that vulnerable individuals and those with lower levels of trust in the healthcare system are less likely to be receptive to participating in a COVID-19 clinical trial highlights that work is needed to achieve a healthcare system that provides confidence to historically disadvantaged groups that their participation in research will benefit their community.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e230181"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287768/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0181","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To identify factors associated with willingness to participate in a COVID-19 clinical trial and reasons for and against participating. Materials & methods: We surveyed Massachusetts (MA, USA) residents online using the Dynata survey platform and via phone using random digit dialing between October and November 2021. Respondents were asked to imagine they were hospitalized with COVID-19 and invited to participate in a treatment trial. We assessed willingness to participate by asking, "Which way are you leaning" and why. We used multivariate logistic regression to model factors associated with leaning toward participation. Open-ended responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results: Of 1071 respondents, 65.6% leaned toward participating. Multivariable analyses revealed college-education (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.27), trust in the healthcare system (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.58) and relying on doctors (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.45, 2.17) and family or friends (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.54) to make health decisions were significantly associated with leaning toward participating. Respondents with lower health literacy (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.91) and who identify as Black (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.68), Hispanic (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.98), or republican (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.97) were significantly less likely to lean toward participating. Common reasons for participating included helping others, benefitting oneself and deeming the study low risk. Common reasons for leaning against were deeming the study high risk, disliking experimental treatments and not wanting to be a guinea pig. Conclusion: Our finding that vulnerable individuals and those with lower levels of trust in the healthcare system are less likely to be receptive to participating in a COVID-19 clinical trial highlights that work is needed to achieve a healthcare system that provides confidence to historically disadvantaged groups that their participation in research will benefit their community.

COVID-19 临床试验:谁可能参与,为什么?
目的:确定与是否愿意参加 COVID-19 临床试验相关的因素,以及支持和反对参加试验的原因。材料与方法:我们在 2021 年 10 月至 11 月期间使用 Dynata 调查平台在线调查了马萨诸塞州(美国马萨诸塞州)居民,并通过随机数字拨号电话进行了调查。受访者被要求想象自己因 COVID-19 而住院,并被邀请参加治疗试验。我们通过询问 "您倾向于哪种方式 "及其原因来评估参与意愿。我们使用多变量逻辑回归来模拟与参与意愿相关的因素。我们使用传统的内容分析法对开放式回答进行了分析。结果:在 1071 位受访者中,65.6% 倾向于参与。多变量分析显示,大学教育程度(OR:1.59;95% CI:1.11, 2.27)、对医疗保健系统的信任(OR:1.32;95% CI:1.10, 1.58)以及依赖医生(OR:1.77;95% CI:1.45, 2.17)和家人或朋友(OR:1.31;95% CI:1.11, 1.54)做出健康决定与倾向于参与显著相关。健康素养较低的受访者(OR:0.57;95% CI:0.36,0.91)以及黑人(OR:0.40;95% CI:0.24,0.68)、西班牙裔(OR:0.61;95% CI:0.38,0.98)或共和党人(OR:0.61;95% CI:0.38,0.97)倾向于参与的可能性明显较低。参与的常见原因包括帮助他人、使自己受益以及认为研究风险低。倾向于反对的常见原因包括认为研究风险高、不喜欢实验性治疗以及不想当小白鼠。结论我们发现,弱势人群和对医疗保健系统信任度较低的人群不太可能接受参与 COVID-19 临床试验,这突出表明我们需要努力建立一个医疗保健系统,让历来处于不利地位的群体相信他们参与研究将造福于他们的社区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信