The social experience of participation in a COVID-19 vaccine trial: Subjects’ motivations, others’ concerns, and insights for vaccine promotion

  1. Emily Wentzell
  2. Ana-Monica Racila

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.036
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.30.20249051: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Qualitative study subjects gave verbal consent to be interviewed and audio-recorded.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Author 1 coded the transcripts for these themes using the qualitative research software NVivo [26].
    NVivo
    suggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    4.3 Strengths and Limitations: A key strength of this study is its use of the vaccine trial context to generate early findings about the lived experiences of potential COVID-19 vaccine recipients before vaccine approval. This is a useful context for identifying experienced rather than hypothetical attitudes toward a new vaccine, and especially relevant in this case since the public appears to view even approved COVID-19 vaccines as somewhat experimental given their novelty. This context also poses limitations. That interviewees were receiving an experimental vaccine likely compounded others’ concerns, and the possibility of receiving placebo or ultimately ineffective vaccine made participants’ experiences differ from those of approved vaccine recipients. Additionally, this was a small exploratory study representing a subgroup of the subgroup of people willing to participate in a vaccine trial; findings might not represent the experiences of all trial participants. While ongoing research with diverse populations throughout the vaccine roll-out will be necessary for creating effective promotion materials, the present findings offer an early look at key themes likely to be relevant for similar populations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.30.20249051 on medRxiv