在三级转诊中心进行的第2/3期COVID-19疫苗监管研究的知情同意过程中,对参与者提出的问题进行审计。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Postgraduate Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_1216_21
V L Chaudhari, C J Godbole, S R Bendkhale, N N Desai, N J Gogtay, U M Thatte
{"title":"在三级转诊中心进行的第2/3期COVID-19疫苗监管研究的知情同意过程中,对参与者提出的问题进行审计。","authors":"V L Chaudhari,&nbsp;C J Godbole,&nbsp;S R Bendkhale,&nbsp;N N Desai,&nbsp;N J Gogtay,&nbsp;U M Thatte","doi":"10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_1216_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate questions asked during the informed consent process by adult participants in a COVID-19 vaccine regulatory study conducted at our center in 2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After approval by the IEC, informed consent documents and consent narratives were evaluated. We collated the total number and nature of questions. We then looked at the association between education, gender, socio-economic status, employment status, the language of consent, and number of questions. Between-group comparison (female vs male, unemployed vs employed, primary school vs secondary school vs graduate vs post-graduates, upper vs upper-middle vs middle vs lower middle vs lower) for the number of questions asked was done using univariate analysis followed by multivariate regression analysis with post hoc Tukey's test. Independent variables were gender, employment status, education and socioeconomic status and the dependent variable was the number of questions asked by the participant. All analyses were done at 5% significance. Content analysis was done in addition by creating categories after evaluation and coding them.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of N = 129 consents from the same number of participants were evaluated. A total of N = 127/129 participants asked at least one question. Sixty-seven percent of participants asked questions related to the study procedure, followed by 44.9% of participants who asked questions related to the safety of vaccine or placebo. A total of N = 295 questions were asked by the 127 participants. In content analysis, 149/295 (50.5%) questions were on study-related procedures followed by one quarter 76/295 (25.8%) based on safety associated with Investigational Product. Very few participants [2.4%] asked about post-trial access as the regulatory trial was a placebo-controlled trial. None of the independent variables were found to be associated with the number of questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The majority of the questions asked by the participants were about study-related procedures and vaccine safety. No association was found between any of the independent variables and the number of questions asked. However, there were differences in the demographics of the trial participants between the pandemic and pre-pandemic era.</p>","PeriodicalId":16860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Postgraduate Medicine","volume":"69 1","pages":"21-26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9997609/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An audit of questions asked by participants during the informed consent process for a phase 2/3 COVID-19 vaccine regulatory study at a tertiary referral centre.\",\"authors\":\"V L Chaudhari,&nbsp;C J Godbole,&nbsp;S R Bendkhale,&nbsp;N N Desai,&nbsp;N J Gogtay,&nbsp;U M Thatte\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_1216_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate questions asked during the informed consent process by adult participants in a COVID-19 vaccine regulatory study conducted at our center in 2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After approval by the IEC, informed consent documents and consent narratives were evaluated. We collated the total number and nature of questions. We then looked at the association between education, gender, socio-economic status, employment status, the language of consent, and number of questions. Between-group comparison (female vs male, unemployed vs employed, primary school vs secondary school vs graduate vs post-graduates, upper vs upper-middle vs middle vs lower middle vs lower) for the number of questions asked was done using univariate analysis followed by multivariate regression analysis with post hoc Tukey's test. Independent variables were gender, employment status, education and socioeconomic status and the dependent variable was the number of questions asked by the participant. All analyses were done at 5% significance. Content analysis was done in addition by creating categories after evaluation and coding them.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of N = 129 consents from the same number of participants were evaluated. A total of N = 127/129 participants asked at least one question. Sixty-seven percent of participants asked questions related to the study procedure, followed by 44.9% of participants who asked questions related to the safety of vaccine or placebo. A total of N = 295 questions were asked by the 127 participants. In content analysis, 149/295 (50.5%) questions were on study-related procedures followed by one quarter 76/295 (25.8%) based on safety associated with Investigational Product. Very few participants [2.4%] asked about post-trial access as the regulatory trial was a placebo-controlled trial. None of the independent variables were found to be associated with the number of questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The majority of the questions asked by the participants were about study-related procedures and vaccine safety. No association was found between any of the independent variables and the number of questions asked. However, there were differences in the demographics of the trial participants between the pandemic and pre-pandemic era.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Postgraduate Medicine\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"21-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9997609/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Postgraduate Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_1216_21\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Postgraduate Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_1216_21","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估2020年在我中心开展的一项COVID-19疫苗监管研究中成年参与者在知情同意过程中提出的问题。方法:经IEC批准后,对知情同意文件和同意叙述进行评估。我们整理了问题的总数和性质。然后,我们研究了教育程度、性别、社会经济地位、就业状况、同意的语言和问题数量之间的关系。组间比较(女性vs男性,失业vs就业,小学vs中学vs研究生vs研究生,上层vs中上层vs中层vs下层中层vs下层)的问题数量使用单变量分析进行,然后使用事后Tukey检验进行多变量回归分析。自变量是性别、就业状况、教育程度和社会经济地位,因变量是参与者提出的问题数量。所有分析均以5%显著性进行。此外,还通过创建评估和编码后的类别来进行内容分析。结果:共有N = 129名来自相同数量参与者的同意被评估。共有127/129名参与者至少问了一个问题。67%的参与者询问了与研究程序相关的问题,其次是44.9%的参与者询问了与疫苗或安慰剂的安全性相关的问题。127名参与者共提出了295个问题。在内容分析中,149/295(50.5%)的问题是与研究相关的程序,其次是1 / 4的76/295(25.8%)的问题是与研究产品相关的安全性。很少有参与者(2.4%)询问了试验后的准入问题,因为监管试验是一项安慰剂对照试验。没有一个自变量被发现与问题的数量有关。结论:参与者提出的大多数问题是与研究相关的程序和疫苗安全性。没有发现任何自变量和问题数量之间的联系。然而,在大流行时期和大流行前时期,试验参与者的人口统计数据存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An audit of questions asked by participants during the informed consent process for a phase 2/3 COVID-19 vaccine regulatory study at a tertiary referral centre.

Objective: To evaluate questions asked during the informed consent process by adult participants in a COVID-19 vaccine regulatory study conducted at our center in 2020.

Methods: After approval by the IEC, informed consent documents and consent narratives were evaluated. We collated the total number and nature of questions. We then looked at the association between education, gender, socio-economic status, employment status, the language of consent, and number of questions. Between-group comparison (female vs male, unemployed vs employed, primary school vs secondary school vs graduate vs post-graduates, upper vs upper-middle vs middle vs lower middle vs lower) for the number of questions asked was done using univariate analysis followed by multivariate regression analysis with post hoc Tukey's test. Independent variables were gender, employment status, education and socioeconomic status and the dependent variable was the number of questions asked by the participant. All analyses were done at 5% significance. Content analysis was done in addition by creating categories after evaluation and coding them.

Results: A total of N = 129 consents from the same number of participants were evaluated. A total of N = 127/129 participants asked at least one question. Sixty-seven percent of participants asked questions related to the study procedure, followed by 44.9% of participants who asked questions related to the safety of vaccine or placebo. A total of N = 295 questions were asked by the 127 participants. In content analysis, 149/295 (50.5%) questions were on study-related procedures followed by one quarter 76/295 (25.8%) based on safety associated with Investigational Product. Very few participants [2.4%] asked about post-trial access as the regulatory trial was a placebo-controlled trial. None of the independent variables were found to be associated with the number of questions.

Conclusion: The majority of the questions asked by the participants were about study-related procedures and vaccine safety. No association was found between any of the independent variables and the number of questions asked. However, there were differences in the demographics of the trial participants between the pandemic and pre-pandemic era.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal will cover technical, clinical and bioengineering studies related to human well being including ethical and social issues. The journal gives preference to clinically oriented studies over experimental and animal studies. The Journal would publish peer-reviewed original research papers, case reports, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and debates.
期刊最新文献
Trends in oral anticoagulant use - A 10-year retrospective analysis from a general medicine department of a tertiary care hospital in south India. Skull-base temporal encephalocele: Hidden cause of temporal lobe epilepsy. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in pheochromocytoma - paraganglioma: A single center experience. Primary colonic natural-killer T-cell lymphoma mimicking Crohn's disease. Surgical considerations in congenital nontumorous obstructive hydrocephalus
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1