IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002698.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Healthy volunteers' perceptions of risk in US Phase I clinical trials: A mixed-methods study

Author

Listed:
  • Jill A Fisher
  • Lisa McManus
  • Marci D Cottingham
  • Julianne M Kalbaugh
  • Megan M Wood
  • Torin Monahan
  • Rebecca L Walker

Abstract

Background: There is limited research on healthy volunteers’ perceptions of the risks of Phase I clinical trials. In order to contribute empirically to long-standing ethical concerns about healthy volunteers’ involvement in drug development, it is crucial to assess how these participants understand trial risks. The objectives of this study were to investigate (1) participants’ views of the overall risks of Phase I trials, (2) their views of the risk of personally being harmed in a trial, and (3) how risk perceptions vary across participants’ clinical trial history and sociodemographic characteristics. Methods and findings: We qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed semi-structured interviews conducted with 178 healthy volunteers who had participated in a diverse range of Phase I trials in the United States. Participants had collective experience in a reported 1,948 Phase I trials (mean = 10.9; median = 5), and they were interviewed as part of a longitudinal study of healthy volunteers’ risk perceptions, their trial enrollment decisions, and their routine health behaviors. Participants’ qualitative responses were coded, analyzed, and subsequently quantified in order to assess correlations between their risk perceptions and demographics, such as their race/ethnicity, gender, age, educational attainment, employment status, and household income. We found that healthy volunteers often viewed the overall risks of Phase I trials differently than their own personal risk of harm. The majority of our participants thought that Phase I trials were medium, high, or extremely high risk (118 of 178), but most nonetheless felt that they were personally safe from harm (97 of 178). We also found that healthy volunteers in their first year of clinical trial participation, racial and ethnic minority participants, and Hispanic participants tended to view the overall trial risks as high (respectively, Jonckheere-Terpstra, −2.433, p = 0.015; Fisher exact test, p = 0.016; Fisher exact test, p = 0.008), but these groups did not differ in regard to their perceptions of personal risk of harm (respectively, chi-squared, 3.578, p = 0.059; chi-squared, 0.845, p = 0.358; chi-squared, 1.667, p = 0.197). The main limitation of our study comes from quantitatively aggregating data from in-depth interviews, which required the research team to interpret participants’ nonstandardized risk narratives. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that healthy volunteers are generally aware of and reflective about Phase I trial risks. The discrepancy in healthy volunteers’ views of overall and personal risk sheds light on why healthy volunteers might continue to enroll in clinical trials, even when they view trials on the whole as risky. Jill A. Fisher and colleagues use mixed-methods analysis of 178 interviews to discover how US Phase I trial participants assess their personal risk when they choose to volunteer.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Jill A Fisher & Lisa McManus & Marci D Cottingham & Julianne M Kalbaugh & Megan M Wood & Torin Monahan & Rebecca L Walker, 2018. "Healthy volunteers' perceptions of risk in US Phase I clinical trials: A mixed-methods study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-21, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002698
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002698
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002698&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002698?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Torin Monahan & Jill A Fisher, 2020. "Sacrificial Labour: Social Inequality, Identity Work, and the Damaging Pursuit of Elusive Futures," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 34(3), pages 441-456, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002698. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.