Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e23441, 2021 02 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1573892


BACKGROUND: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited "to contribute to scientific knowledge" (n=80, 53.0%), followed by "to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection" (n=33, 21.9%) and "the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2" (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers' reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.

Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/psychology , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surveys and Questionnaires
J Health Commun ; 25(10): 780-789, 2020 10 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1236153


The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the importance of clinical trials for finding a safe and effective vaccine to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. Although communication about vaccines and vaccine hesitancy were challenges long before COVID-19, the twin facts of a pandemic and an "infodemic" of health information, misinformation, and disinformation have raised new challenges for vaccine-related communication and decision-making. The goal of this commentary is to highlight strategies to improve communication and decision-making for adults considering participation in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. First, I present a general conceptual model for clinical trial participation that can be applied to various vaccine and other clinical trial contexts. Next, I introduce the ASK (Assume, Seek, Know) approach for enhancing clinical trial participation: (1) assume that all patients will want to know their options, (2) seek the counsel of stakeholders, and (3) know your numbers. The ideas presented in this commentary are intended to enhance vaccine-specific clinical trial communication, decision-making, and literacy, while dually offering strategies and resources that may help reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake over time.

COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Decision Making , Health Communication/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Research Subjects/psychology , Adult , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Literacy , Humans , Intention , Patient Selection , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/psychology