• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis.大流行或传染病背景下疫苗试验招募的影响因素:定性证据综合。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Sep 1;9(9):MR000065. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000065.pub2.
2
Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.影响医疗保健领域随机试验招募的因素:一项定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 7;10(10):MR000045. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000045.pub2.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis.医护人员遵守呼吸道传染病感染预防与控制(IPC)指南的障碍与促进因素:一项快速定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 21;4(4):CD013582. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013582.
5
Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of communicating with people over 50 years of age about vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis.医护人员与50岁以上人群就疫苗接种进行沟通的认知与经历:一项定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jul 20;7(7):CD013706. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013706.pub2.
6
Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review.在疾病爆发、流行或大流行期间及之后,为支持一线卫生和社会护理专业人员的适应能力和心理健康所采取的干预措施:一项混合方法的系统评价
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 5;11(11):CD013779. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013779.
7
Factors that influence participation in physical activity for people with bipolar disorder: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.影响双相障碍患者参与体育活动的因素:定性证据的综合分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 4;6(6):CD013557. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013557.pub2.
8
Healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis.医疗保健利益相关者对影响重症监护远程医疗(CCT)实施因素的看法和经验:定性证据综合分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 18;2(2):CD012876. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012876.pub2.
9
Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis.影响父母和非正式照顾者对常规儿童疫苗接种看法和做法的因素:定性证据综合分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 27;10(10):CD013265. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013265.pub2.
10
Perceptions and experiences of the prevention, detection, and management of postpartum haemorrhage: a qualitative evidence synthesis.预防、检测和管理产后出血的认知和经验:定性证据综合。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 27;11(11):CD013795. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013795.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Why do patients take part in research? An updated overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators.患者为何参与研究?心理社会障碍与促进因素的系统评价最新综述。
Trials. 2025 May 27;26(1):174. doi: 10.1186/s13063-025-08850-6.
2
Factors that influence recruitment to COVID-19 vaccine trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis.影响新冠疫苗试验招募工作的因素:一项定性证据综合分析
Trials. 2024 Dec 19;25(1):837. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08670-0.
3
Therapeutics for Nipah virus disease: a systematic review to support prioritisation of drug candidates for clinical trials.尼帕病毒病的治疗方法:一项支持临床试验候选药物优先级排序的系统评价
Lancet Microbe. 2025 May;6(5):101002. doi: 10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.101002. Epub 2024 Nov 13.
4
Stakeholder perspectives towards diagnostic artificial intelligence: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.利益相关者对诊断人工智能的看法:一项联合生成的定性证据综合分析
EClinicalMedicine. 2024 Mar 22;71:102555. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102555. eCollection 2024 May.
5
Understanding Low Vaccine Uptake in the Context of Public Health in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.高收入国家公共卫生背景下疫苗接种率低的原因:一项范围综述
Vaccines (Basel). 2024 Mar 4;12(3):269. doi: 10.3390/vaccines12030269.

本文引用的文献

1
Exclusion of Reproductive-aged Women in COVID-19 Vaccination and Clinical Trials.将育龄期女性排除在 COVID-19 疫苗接种和临床试验之外。
Womens Health Issues. 2022 Nov-Dec;32(6):557-563. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2022.06.004. Epub 2022 Jun 15.
2
Pregnant and Postpartum Patients' Views of COVID-19 Vaccination.孕妇和产后患者对 COVID-19 疫苗接种的看法。
J Community Health. 2022 Oct;47(5):871-878. doi: 10.1007/s10900-022-01118-z. Epub 2022 Jul 16.
3
The politics of vaccine hesitancy in Europe.欧洲疫苗犹豫的政治。
Eur J Public Health. 2022 Aug 1;32(4):636-642. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckac041.
4
COVID-19 vaccine trials with children: ethics pointers.儿童 COVID-19 疫苗试验:伦理要点。
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Jan;7(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007466.
5
Exploring the Scope and Dimensions of Vaccine Hesitancy and Resistance to Enhance COVID-19 Vaccination in Black Communities.探索疫苗犹豫和对 COVID-19 疫苗接种的抵制的范围和维度,以加强黑人群体的疫苗接种。
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2022 Dec;9(6):2117-2130. doi: 10.1007/s40615-021-01150-0. Epub 2021 Sep 22.
6
Healthy volunteers in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time.美国 I 期临床试验中的健康志愿者:社会人口学特征和随时间的参与情况。
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 7;16(9):e0256994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256994. eCollection 2021.
7
Quarantine acceptance and adherence: qualitative evidence synthesis and conceptual framework.检疫接受度与依从性:定性证据综合分析与概念框架
Z Gesundh Wiss. 2022;30(9):2091-2101. doi: 10.1007/s10389-021-01544-8. Epub 2021 Apr 16.
8
Under consent: participation of people with HIV in an Ebola vaccine trial in Canada.经同意:加拿大艾滋病毒感染者参与埃博拉疫苗试验。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Apr 9;22(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00606-6.
9
The social experience of participation in a COVID-19 vaccine trial: Subjects' motivations, others' concerns, and insights for vaccine promotion.参与 COVID-19 疫苗试验的社会体验:受试者的动机、他人的担忧,以及对疫苗推广的见解。
Vaccine. 2021 Apr 22;39(17):2445-2451. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.036. Epub 2021 Mar 10.
10
Beyond recruitment: good participatory practice enhances the impact of research in a pandemic.超越招募:良好的参与式实践可增强大流行期间研究的影响力。
Nat Med. 2021 Mar;27(3):369-371. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01271-3.

大流行或传染病背景下疫苗试验招募的影响因素:定性证据综合。

Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

机构信息

Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Sep 1;9(9):MR000065. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000065.pub2.

DOI:10.1002/14651858.MR000065.pub2
PMID:37655964
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10472890/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

摘要

背景

世界卫生组织于 2020 年 3 月 11 日宣布 COVID-19 大流行。疫苗的开发和部署被迅速提上日程,作为管理和控制疾病传播的一种方法。有效疫苗的开发依赖于人们参与随机试验。由于涉及可能对快速开发的疫苗的潜在风险和益处有顾虑的健康志愿者,因此疫苗试验的招募极具挑战性。

目的

探讨在大流行或流行期间,影响一个人参与疫苗试验的决定的因素。

检索方法

我们使用了标准的、广泛的 Cochrane 检索方法。最新的检索日期是 2021 年 6 月。

选择标准

我们纳入了定性研究和混合方法研究,其中包含可识别的定性部分。我们纳入了在大流行或流行期间被邀请参加疫苗试验的 18 岁及以上成年人的观点的研究。

数据收集与分析

我们评估了搜索结果的标题、摘要和全文。我们使用抽样框架来确定代表不同疾病和地理分布的具有丰富数据的研究。我们使用 QSR NVivo 来管理提取的数据。我们使用定性研究的适应版 Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) 工具来评估方法学局限性。我们使用“最佳拟合框架方法”来分析和综合我们纳入研究的证据。然后,我们使用 Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) 评估来评估我们对每个发现的信心,并制定对实践的影响。

主要结果

我们的综述纳入了 34 项研究。大多数研究与 HIV 疫苗试验有关。其他研究与埃博拉病毒、结核病、寨卡病毒和 COVID-19 有关。我们确定了 20 个关键发现,分为三个广泛的主题(七个子主题),描述了人们在决定是否参加大流行或传染病疫苗试验时考虑的因素。我们对九个关键发现的信心很高,对十个关键发现的信心为中等,对一个关键发现的信心较低。降低审查结果可信度的主要原因是对基础数据的相关性和充分性的担忧。由于 HIV 研究的代表性过高,我们对一些发现的 GRADE-CERQual 评估因描述的观点可能与人们对其他大流行或传染病疫苗试验的看法不一致而降级。充分性涉及支持审查发现的数据的丰富程度和数量。对充分性的适度关注导致一些审查结果的降级。有些因素被认为是试验团队可以控制的。这些因素包括试验信息的沟通方式以及社区中帮助试验信息传播的人员。试验设计的某些方面也被认为是在试验团队的控制之下,包括参与的便利性、提供经济奖励以及为参与试验的人员提供额外的支持服务。影响人们参与决定的其他因素可能来自个人、家庭、朋友或更广泛的社会。从个人的角度来看,人们对疫苗的副作用、疫苗的功效以及对日常生活的可能影响(照顾责任、工作等)表示担忧。人们还受到家庭的影响,以及参与研究可能对人际关系产生的影响。来自社会的耻辱感也影响了参与的决定。此外,从社会的角度来看,人们对政府参与研究和试验的信任程度可能会影响一个人的决定。最后,个人和社会的潜在回报是参与决定的影响因素。个人回报包括获得疫苗、改善健康和提高疾病知识,以及在大流行或流行期间恢复正常生活。潜在的社会回报包括帮助社区和为科学做出贡献,这通常是受到死于该疾病的家人和朋友的记忆的激励。

作者结论

本综述确定了许多影响一个人参与疫苗试验的决定的因素,这些因素反映了更广泛地研究试验的综述结果。然而,我们也认识到在大流行或流行期间,疫苗试验中一些因素变得更加重要。这些因素包括参与的潜在耻辱感、疫苗的可能副作用、帮助社会的额外动机、社区领导人在试验传播中的作用以及对开发疫苗的政府和公司的信任程度。当在大流行或流行期间设计和传达疫苗试验时,试验团队需要考虑这些特定的影响。