Motivations for enrollment in a COVID-19 ring-based post-exposure prophylaxis trial: qualitative examination of participant experiences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Ring-based studies are a novel research design commonly used for research involving infectious diseases: contacts of newly infected individuals form a ring that is targeted for interventions (e.g., vaccine, post-exposure prophylaxis). Given the novelty of the research design, it is critical to obtain feedback from participants on their experiences with ring-based studies to help with the development of future trials. METHODS: In 2021, we conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with adult participants of a COVID-19 ring-based post-exposure prophylaxis trial based in Canada. We applied a purposive sampling approach and electronically recruited participants who tested positive for COVID-19 (Index Cases) and either agreed or declined for the study team to contact their potentially exposed contacts. We also included individuals who participated in the trial after being potentially exposed to an Index Case (known as Ring Members), and those who declined to participate after potential exposure. The methodological design of semi-structured interviews allowed participants to share their opinions and experiences in the trial (e.g., elements they enjoyed and disliked regarding their participation in the study). RESULTS: The majority of participants in our study were women (62%) and the average age was 37.3 years (SD = 13.2). Overall, participants reported being highly satisfied with partaking in the ring-based trial. Notably, no substantial complaints were voiced about the trial's design involving contact after exposure. The most common reason of satisfaction was the knowledge of potentially helping others by advancing knowledge for a greater cause (e.g., development of potential treatment to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection). Other reasons were curiosity about participating in a trial, and an activity to fill free time during the pandemic. A central element of dislike was confusion about instructions with the trial (e.g., independent at home SARS-CoV-2 testing). Additionally, maintaining confidentiality was a crucial concern for participants, who sought assurance that their data would not be shared beyond the scope of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Our results have the potential to inform future research, including clinical trials such as ring-based studies, by incorporating insights from participants' experiences into the development of study protocols. Despite some protocol-related challenges, participants expressed high satisfaction, driven by the desire to advance science and potentially aid others.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,040 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».