Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2023
01 09 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
01
09
2024
medline:
7
9
2023
pubmed:
1
9
2023
entrez:
1
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines. To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021. We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice. We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease. This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.
OBJECTIVES
To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37655964
doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000065.pub2
pmc: PMC10472890
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
MR000065Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004 Jan 24;148(4):186-90
pubmed: 14974312
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 13;13:37
pubmed: 23497061
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jun 12;13(5):330-420
pubmed: 26455613
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr;7(4):e21
pubmed: 32199510
BMJ. 2020 Oct 14;371:m3985
pubmed: 33055099
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001 Jan 1;26(1):63-71
pubmed: 11176270
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Sep 1;9:MR000065
pubmed: 37655964
Fam Pract. 2013 Apr;30(2):233-41
pubmed: 22987456
J Community Health. 2022 Oct;47(5):871-878
pubmed: 35841461
Vaccine. 2008 Feb 20;26(8):1091-7
pubmed: 18237829
JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):543-545
pubmed: 32717043
J Affect Disord. 2015 Feb 1;172:274-90
pubmed: 25451427
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382(13):1199-1207
pubmed: 31995857
Brain Behav Immun. 2021 May;94:41-50
pubmed: 33713824
JAMA. 2020 Aug 4;324(5):437-438
pubmed: 32628244
Public Health Nurs. 2021 Jan;38(1):40-46
pubmed: 33111332
Vaccine. 2011 Aug 18;29(36):6130-5
pubmed: 21704110
JAMA. 2020 Sep 1;324(9):826-828
pubmed: 32789501
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021 Mar;3(2):100295
pubmed: 33516986
Am J Public Health. 2011 Sep;101(9):1749-58
pubmed: 21778490
Trials. 2006 Dec 12;7:32
pubmed: 17163988
Patient Educ Couns. 2020 May;103(5):873-876
pubmed: 32336348
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 20;7(3):e015276
pubmed: 28320800
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;21(2):e26-e35
pubmed: 33125914
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 Oct;18(4):233-41
pubmed: 23986530
Prev Sci. 2014 Jun;15(3):268-76
pubmed: 23446435
Am J Perinatol. 2020 Jun;37(8):792-799
pubmed: 32428965
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2017 May;16(5):467-477
pubmed: 28277098
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2022 Dec;9(6):2117-2130
pubmed: 34553340
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Apr;77(4):557-568
pubmed: 33188452
Vaccine. 2008 May 12;26(20):2528-36
pubmed: 18420313
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 7;10:MR000045
pubmed: 33026107
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Mar 1;4(3):e210330
pubmed: 33646310
AIDS Behav. 2007 Jul;11(4):619-27
pubmed: 17016758
Vaccine. 2021 Apr 22;39(17):2445-2451
pubmed: 33745730
Pediatrics. 2021 Mar;147(3):
pubmed: 33334920
BMC Public Health. 2018 Apr 23;18(1):535
pubmed: 29685114
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;120:17-24
pubmed: 31862229
J Natl Med Assoc. 2007 Mar;99(3):254-7
pubmed: 17393949
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006 Feb 1;41(2):210-7
pubmed: 16394854
Curr HIV Res. 2013 Apr;11(3):238-45
pubmed: 23721228
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Jan 4;2(1):e187355
pubmed: 30681707
Vaccine. 2021 Apr 8;39(15):2024-2034
pubmed: 33722411
AIDS Care. 2008 Nov;20(10):1224-32
pubmed: 18608070
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;20(7):782
pubmed: 32592670
AIDS Care. 2007 Jan;19(1):52-8
pubmed: 17129857
BMC Public Health. 2010 May 28;10:292
pubmed: 20509908
Health Educ Behav. 2007 Feb;34(1):108-23
pubmed: 16740504
Vaccine. 2019 Oct 16;37(44):6633-6639
pubmed: 31543417
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Apr;203:35-42
pubmed: 29544144
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 16;6(2):e14619
pubmed: 21358826
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Nov;26(11):1450-1452
pubmed: 32777361
Nat Med. 2021 Mar;27(3):369-371
pubmed: 33723450
Vaccine. 2019 Mar 7;37(11):1495-1502
pubmed: 30755367
Fam Pract. 2007 Dec;24(6):601-3
pubmed: 17872907
Adolesc Health Med Ther. 2018 Jun 13;9:87-94
pubmed: 29942170
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 13;56(2):
pubmed: 32631833
Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2009 Winter;20(4):e124-9
pubmed: 21119788
Public Health. 2019 Dec;177:80-94
pubmed: 31557667
Vaccine. 2011 Jan 10;29(3):451-8
pubmed: 21075163
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Aug 10;(8):MR000026
pubmed: 21833989
J Clin Nurs. 2019 Jul;28(13-14):2443-2461
pubmed: 30673153
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jun 24;16:203
pubmed: 27338141
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Feb;7(2):141-8
pubmed: 16455478
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):2
pubmed: 29384079
J Public Health (Oxf). 2021 Jun 7;43(2):e258-e260
pubmed: 33124667
BMJ. 2021 Jan 29;372:n235
pubmed: 33514589
Vaccine. 2019 Jan 7;37(2):289-295
pubmed: 30528592
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Nov;24(11):700-8
pubmed: 26306609
J Clin Nurs. 2017 Mar;26(5-6):873-881
pubmed: 27324875
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 21;10(8):e0135937
pubmed: 26295159
Eur J Public Health. 2022 Aug 1;32(4):636-642
pubmed: 35522721
Am J Health Promot. 2014 Nov-Dec;29(2):e82-90
pubmed: 24432823
Glob Health Promot. 2015 Mar;22(1):21-31
pubmed: 24842989
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 18;17(1):469
pubmed: 28521748
Eur J Pediatr. 2004 Feb;163(2):53-7
pubmed: 14716559
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Feb 1;4(2):e2037640
pubmed: 33606033
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Mar;9(3):e366-e371
pubmed: 33340453
Womens Health Issues. 2022 Nov-Dec;32(6):557-563
pubmed: 36075817
BMJ. 2021 Jan 14;372:m4921
pubmed: 33446485
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Mar;79(3):357-69
pubmed: 24325152
Vaccine. 2011 Nov 8;29(48):8924-8
pubmed: 21964057
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e51328
pubmed: 23349672
Vaccine. 2019 Nov 15;37(48):7165-7170
pubmed: 31623917
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007 Aug;18(3):687-98
pubmed: 17675723
EBioMedicine. 2016 Oct;12:295-301
pubmed: 27658738
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Jan;7(1):
pubmed: 35012971
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 7;12(9):e0183788
pubmed: 28880880
BMC Med. 2019 Feb 15;17(1):31
pubmed: 30764826
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51080
pubmed: 23226560
Int J Equity Health. 2020 Aug 20;19(1):141
pubmed: 32819364
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jan 31;19(1):26
pubmed: 30704402
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 06;17(5):
pubmed: 32155789
Cult Health Sex. 2006 Nov-Dec;8(6):529-44
pubmed: 17050384
BMC Psychiatry. 2010 Dec 02;10:103
pubmed: 21126334
Trials. 2010 Mar 22;11:31
pubmed: 20307273
Health Expect. 2018 Feb;21(1):387-395
pubmed: 28960624
Pak J Med Sci. 2020 May;36(COVID19-S4):S6-S11
pubmed: 32582306
Glob Public Health. 2020 Dec;15(12):1917-1923
pubmed: 32985374
BMC Med. 2020 Jan 20;18(1):6
pubmed: 31955710
Vaccine. 2019 Feb 21;37(9):1168-1173
pubmed: 30709722
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Oct;60(10):990-1001
pubmed: 17884592
Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(20):1-143
pubmed: 10683591
Trials. 2016 Sep 02;17(1):431
pubmed: 27590594
Lancet. 2020 Jun 27;395(10242):1955-1957
pubmed: 32539937
Trials. 2012 Nov 21;13:218
pubmed: 23171513
Womens Health Issues. 2013 Jan;23(1):e39-45
pubmed: 23312713
BMC Public Health. 2016 Nov 8;16(1):1140
pubmed: 27821112
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1999 Feb 1;20(2):164-71
pubmed: 10048904
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 8;14(11):e0224831
pubmed: 31703092
Trials. 2020 Mar 12;21(1):259
pubmed: 32164790
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Feb 25;23(2):e23441
pubmed: 33556032
AIDS Care. 1995;7(2):147-58
pubmed: 7619869
J Interprof Care. 2004 Nov;18(4):369-80
pubmed: 15801552
Vaccine. 2020 Oct 14;38(44):6922-6929
pubmed: 32893036
Trials. 2006 Apr 07;7:9
pubmed: 16603070
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 22;2:MR000013
pubmed: 29468635
Vaccine. 2017 Dec 4;35(48 Pt B):6598-6603
pubmed: 29074202
Trials. 2013 Jun 09;14:166
pubmed: 23758961
J Public Health (Oxf). 2020 Aug 18;42(3):451-460
pubmed: 32556213
Z Gesundh Wiss. 2022;30(9):2091-2101
pubmed: 33898163
BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 06;2(1):e000496
pubmed: 22228729
AIDS Educ Prev. 2006 Dec;18(6):560-72
pubmed: 17166081
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016 Oct;11(4):299-310
pubmed: 28251864
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 7;16(9):e0256994
pubmed: 34492044
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 07;2:CD011787
pubmed: 28169420
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Dec;6(12):e1386-e1396
pubmed: 30342925
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Apr 9;22(1):42
pubmed: 33836725
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Dec;15(5):443-451
pubmed: 32363984
Scand J Caring Sci. 2019 Jun;33(2):266-278
pubmed: 30735263
J Health Commun. 2020 Oct 2;25(10):780-789
pubmed: 33719877
Med J Aust. 2020 Jul;213(2):86-93
pubmed: 32594562
Clin Trials. 2011 Feb;8(1):85-93
pubmed: 21163854