The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

What the public think about participation in medical research during an influenza pandemic: an international cross-sectional survey

What the public think about participation in medical research during an influenza pandemic: an international cross-sectional survey
What the public think about participation in medical research during an influenza pandemic: an international cross-sectional survey
Objectives: The public and patients are primary contributors and beneficiaries of pandemic-relevant clinical research. However, their views on research participation during a pandemic have not been systematically studied. We aimed to understand public views regarding participation in clinical research during a hypothetical influenza pandemic.

Study design This is an international cross-sectional survey.

Methods: We surveyed the views of nationally representative samples of people in Belgium, Poland, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, using a scenario-based instrument during the 2017 regional influenza season. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted.

Results: Of the 6804 respondents, 5572 (81.8 thought pandemic-relevant research was important, and 5089 (74.8 thought ?special rules? should be applied to make this research feasible. The respondents indicated willingness to take part in lower risk (4715, 69.3 and higher risk (3585, 52.7 primary care and lower risk (4780, 70.3 and higher risk (4113, 60.4 intensive care unit (ICU) study scenarios. For primary care studies, most (3972, 58.4 participants preferred standard enrolment procedures such as prospective written informed consent, but 2327 (34.2 thought simplified procedures would be acceptable. For ICU studies, 2800 (41.2 preferred deferred consent, and 2623 (38.6 preferred prospective third-party consent. Greater knowledge about pandemics, trust in a health professional, trust in the government, therapeutic misconception and having had ICU experience as a patient or carer predicted increased willingness to participate in pandemic-relevant research.

Conclusions: Our study indicates current public support for pandemic-relevant clinical research. Tailored information and initiatives to advance research literacy and maintain trust are required to support pandemic-relevant research participation and engagement.
80-94
Gobat, N.
fc457255-8fa1-453d-a26e-00c164329c58
Butler, C.C.
1bf09f7b-0ff9-4e05-bce0-f4d60920313c
Mollison, J.
555564a2-d739-4725-aea0-74d6c89c5740
Francis, N.A.
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Gal, M.
49434557-9212-4376-9f60-63b4df70dcb2
Harris, V.
06a42df2-302a-483f-ad8c-700afd9a400b
Webb, S.A.R.
e90f938e-1fb5-4509-a782-29c6e86acaea
Byrne, J.-P.
db62cab0-e059-498e-aa17-733d891e55a0
Watkins, A.
d8a5365d-56db-4f3c-8b18-1fbe908778d4
Sukumar, P.
fe865bd6-972a-4b98-988c-81435198e957
Hood, K.
12e14eb3-2c75-409f-a69d-add733644d89
Nichol, A.
e2d19735-a029-431b-ac3a-921630440c80
Gobat, N.
fc457255-8fa1-453d-a26e-00c164329c58
Butler, C.C.
1bf09f7b-0ff9-4e05-bce0-f4d60920313c
Mollison, J.
555564a2-d739-4725-aea0-74d6c89c5740
Francis, N.A.
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Gal, M.
49434557-9212-4376-9f60-63b4df70dcb2
Harris, V.
06a42df2-302a-483f-ad8c-700afd9a400b
Webb, S.A.R.
e90f938e-1fb5-4509-a782-29c6e86acaea
Byrne, J.-P.
db62cab0-e059-498e-aa17-733d891e55a0
Watkins, A.
d8a5365d-56db-4f3c-8b18-1fbe908778d4
Sukumar, P.
fe865bd6-972a-4b98-988c-81435198e957
Hood, K.
12e14eb3-2c75-409f-a69d-add733644d89
Nichol, A.
e2d19735-a029-431b-ac3a-921630440c80

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., Hood, K. and Nichol, A. (2019) What the public think about participation in medical research during an influenza pandemic: an international cross-sectional survey. Public Health, 177, 80-94. (doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2019.07.005).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objectives: The public and patients are primary contributors and beneficiaries of pandemic-relevant clinical research. However, their views on research participation during a pandemic have not been systematically studied. We aimed to understand public views regarding participation in clinical research during a hypothetical influenza pandemic.

Study design This is an international cross-sectional survey.

Methods: We surveyed the views of nationally representative samples of people in Belgium, Poland, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, using a scenario-based instrument during the 2017 regional influenza season. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted.

Results: Of the 6804 respondents, 5572 (81.8 thought pandemic-relevant research was important, and 5089 (74.8 thought ?special rules? should be applied to make this research feasible. The respondents indicated willingness to take part in lower risk (4715, 69.3 and higher risk (3585, 52.7 primary care and lower risk (4780, 70.3 and higher risk (4113, 60.4 intensive care unit (ICU) study scenarios. For primary care studies, most (3972, 58.4 participants preferred standard enrolment procedures such as prospective written informed consent, but 2327 (34.2 thought simplified procedures would be acceptable. For ICU studies, 2800 (41.2 preferred deferred consent, and 2623 (38.6 preferred prospective third-party consent. Greater knowledge about pandemics, trust in a health professional, trust in the government, therapeutic misconception and having had ICU experience as a patient or carer predicted increased willingness to participate in pandemic-relevant research.

Conclusions: Our study indicates current public support for pandemic-relevant clinical research. Tailored information and initiatives to advance research literacy and maintain trust are required to support pandemic-relevant research participation and engagement.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 2 July 2019
e-pub ahead of print date: 23 September 2019
Published date: 1 December 2019

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 436313
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/436313
PURE UUID: d258ab8d-beb8-4319-ac6a-f66dd1007b4c
ORCID for N.A. Francis: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-7312

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 06 Dec 2019 17:30
Last modified: 26 Nov 2021 03:20

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: N. Gobat
Author: C.C. Butler
Author: J. Mollison
Author: N.A. Francis ORCID iD
Author: M. Gal
Author: V. Harris
Author: S.A.R. Webb
Author: J.-P. Byrne
Author: A. Watkins
Author: P. Sukumar
Author: K. Hood
Author: A. Nichol

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×