Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the parental experience of recruitment and assess differences between parents who participated and those who declined to enroll in a neonatal clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: This was a survey conducted at 12 US neonatal intensive care units of parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and encephaLopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Questions assessed 6 factors of the parental experience of recruitment: (1) interactions with research staff; (2) the consent experience; (3) perceptions of the study; (4) decisional conflict; (5) reasons for/against participation; and (6) timing of making the enrollment decision. RESULTS: In total, 269 of 387 eligible parents, including 183 of 242 (75.6%) of those who enrolled their children in HEAL and 86 of 145 (59.3%) parents who declined to enroll their children in HEAL, were included in analysis. Parents who declined to enroll more preferred to be approached by clinical team members rather than by research team members (72.9% vs 49.2%, P = .005). Enrolled parents more frequently reported positive initial impressions (54.9% vs 10.5%, P < .001). Many parents in both groups made their decision early in the recruitment process. Considerations of reasons for/against participation differed by enrollment status. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how parents experience recruitment, and how this differs by enrollment status, may help researchers improve recruitment processes for families and increase enrollment. The parental experience of recruitment varied by enrollment status. These findings can guide future work aiming to inform optimal recruitment strategies for neonatal clinical trials.

Informed consent for controlled human infection studies in low‐ and middle‐income countries: ethical challenges and proposed solutions

In controlled human infection studies (CHIs), participants are deliberately exposed to infectious agents in order to better understand the mechanism of infection or disease and test therapies or vaccines. While most CHIs have been conducted in high‐income countries, CHIs have recently been expanding into low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). One potential ethical concern about this expansion is the challenge of obtaining the voluntary informed consent of participants, especially those who may not be literate or have limited education. In some CHIs in LMICs, researchers have attempted to address this potential concern by limiting access to literate or educated populations. In this paper, we argue that this practice is unjustified, as it does not increase the chances of obtaining valid informed consent and therefore unfairly excludes illiterate populations and populations with lower education. Instead, we recommend that investigators improve the informed consent process by drawing on existing data on obtaining informed consent in these populations and interventions aimed at improving their understanding. Based on a literature review, we provide concrete suggestions for how to follow this recommendation and ensure that populations with lower literacy or education are given a fair opportunity to protect their rights and interests in the informed consent process.

When could human challenge trials be deployed to combat emerging infectious diseases? Lessons from the case of a Zika virus human challenge trial.

Human challenge trials (HCTs) deliberately infect participants in order to test vaccines and treatments in a controlled setting, rather than enrolling individuals with natural exposure to a disease. HCTs are therefore potentially powerful tools to prepare for future outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases. Yet when an infectious disease is emerging, there is often substantial risk and uncertainty about its complications, and few available interventions, making an HCT ethically complex. In light of the need to consider ethical issues proactively as a part of epidemic preparedness, we use the case of a Zika virus HCT to explore whether and when HCTs might be ethically justified to combat emerging infectious diseases. We conclude that emerging infectious diseases could be appropriate candidates for HCTs and we identify relevant considerations and provide a case example to illustrate when they might be ethically acceptable.

When could human challenge trials be deployed to combat emerging infectious diseases? Lessons from the case of a Zika virus human challenge trial

Human challenge trials (HCTs) deliberately infect participants in order to test vaccines and treatments in a controlled setting, rather than enrolling individuals with natural exposure to a disease. HCTs are therefore potentially powerful tools to prepare for future outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases. Yet when an infectious disease is emerging, there is often substantial risk and uncertainty about its complications, and few available interventions, making an HCT ethically complex. In light of the need to consider ethical issues proactively as a part of epidemic preparedness, we use the case of a Zika virus HCT to explore whether and when HCTs might be ethically justified to combat emerging infectious diseases. We conclude that emerging infectious diseases could be appropriate candidates for HCTs and we identify relevant considerations and provide a case example to illustrate when they might be ethically acceptable.