Public perceptions on Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) studies-a qualitative pilot study from South India.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2021-07-01 Epub Date: 2020-10-21 DOI:10.1007/s40592-020-00121-1
Manjulika Vaz, Olinda Timms, Avita Rose Johnson, Rathna Kumari S, Mala Ramanathan, Mario Vaz
{"title":"Public perceptions on Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) studies-a qualitative pilot study from South India.","authors":"Manjulika Vaz,&nbsp;Olinda Timms,&nbsp;Avita Rose Johnson,&nbsp;Rathna Kumari S,&nbsp;Mala Ramanathan,&nbsp;Mario Vaz","doi":"10.1007/s40592-020-00121-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research using Controlled Human Infection Models is yet to be attempted in India. This study was conducted to understand the perceptions of the lay public and key opinion makers prior to the possible introduction of such studies in the country. 110 respondents from urban and rural Bangalore district were interviewed using qualitative research methods of Focus Group Discussions and In-depth Interviews. The data was analyzed using grounded theory. Safety was a key concern of the lay public, expressed in terms of fear of death. The notion of infecting a healthy volunteer, the possibility of continued effects beyond the study duration and the likelihood of vulnerable populations volunteering solely for monetary benefit, were ethical concerns. Public good outcomes such as effective treatments, targeted vaccines and prevention of diseases was necessary justification for such studies. However, the comprehension of this benefit was not clear among non-medical, non-technical respondents and suggestions to seek alternatives to CHIMs repeatedly arose. There was a great deal of deflection-with each constituency feeling that people other than themselves may be ideally suited as participants. Risk takers, those without dependents, the more health and research literate, financially sound and those with an altruistic bent of mind emerged as possible CHIM volunteers. While widespread awareness and advocacy about CHIM is essential, listening to plural voices is the first step in public engagement in ethically contentious areas. Continued engagement and inclusive deliberative processes are required to redeem the mistrust of the public in research and rebuild faith in regulatory systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"68-93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40592-020-00121-1","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00121-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Research using Controlled Human Infection Models is yet to be attempted in India. This study was conducted to understand the perceptions of the lay public and key opinion makers prior to the possible introduction of such studies in the country. 110 respondents from urban and rural Bangalore district were interviewed using qualitative research methods of Focus Group Discussions and In-depth Interviews. The data was analyzed using grounded theory. Safety was a key concern of the lay public, expressed in terms of fear of death. The notion of infecting a healthy volunteer, the possibility of continued effects beyond the study duration and the likelihood of vulnerable populations volunteering solely for monetary benefit, were ethical concerns. Public good outcomes such as effective treatments, targeted vaccines and prevention of diseases was necessary justification for such studies. However, the comprehension of this benefit was not clear among non-medical, non-technical respondents and suggestions to seek alternatives to CHIMs repeatedly arose. There was a great deal of deflection-with each constituency feeling that people other than themselves may be ideally suited as participants. Risk takers, those without dependents, the more health and research literate, financially sound and those with an altruistic bent of mind emerged as possible CHIM volunteers. While widespread awareness and advocacy about CHIM is essential, listening to plural voices is the first step in public engagement in ethically contentious areas. Continued engagement and inclusive deliberative processes are required to redeem the mistrust of the public in research and rebuild faith in regulatory systems.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

公众对受控人类感染模型(CHIM)研究的看法——一项来自南印度的定性试点研究。
印度还在尝试使用受控人类感染模型进行研究。进行这项研究是为了在可能在该国进行这种研究之前了解非专业公众和主要舆论制造者的看法。采用焦点小组讨论和深度访谈的定性研究方法,对来自班加罗尔城乡的110名受访者进行了访谈。数据是用有根据的理论来分析的。安全是外行公众最关心的问题,表现为对死亡的恐惧。感染健康志愿者的概念、在研究持续时间之后持续影响的可能性以及弱势群体仅仅为了金钱利益而志愿服务的可能性都是伦理问题。诸如有效治疗、有针对性的疫苗和疾病预防等公益成果是进行此类研究的必要理由。然而,非医学、非技术受访者对这一益处的理解并不清楚,寻求替代中西医结合的建议一再出现。每个选民都觉得除了他们自己以外的人更适合作为参与者,这就产生了很大的偏差。愿意承担风险的人、没有家属的人、更了解健康和研究的人、经济状况良好的人以及有利他主义倾向的人都可能成为CHIM的志愿者。虽然对CHIM的广泛认识和倡导至关重要,但倾听多方声音是公众参与伦理争议领域的第一步。要挽回公众对研究的不信任,重建对监管体系的信心,就需要持续的参与和包容性的审议过程。
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
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