Search

Preclinical (animal) testing and human testing of drugs and vaccines are rarely considered by social scientists side by side. Where this is done, it is typically for theoretically exploring the ethics of the two situations to compare relative treatment. In contrast, we empirically explore how human clinical trial participants understand the role of animal test subjects in vaccine development. Furthermore, social science research has only concentrated on broad public opinion and the views of patients about animal research, whereas we explore the views of a public group particularly implicated in pharmaceutical development: experimental subjects. We surveyed and interviewed COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK, on their views about taking part in a vaccine trial and the role of animals in trials. We found that trial participants mirrored assumptions about legitimate reasons for animal testing embedded in regulation and provided insight into (i) the nuances of public opinion on animal research; (ii) the co-production of human and animal experimental subjects; (iii) how vaccine and medicine testing, and the motivations and demographics of clinical trial participants, change in an outbreak; and (iv) what public involvement can offer to science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impacts of healthcare professionals (HCPs) being research participants are often neglected. As professionals, they tend to be perceived as 'immune' to many negative effects of sharing their experiences. However, in the context of an ongoing global pandemic such as COVID-19, these assumptions can be clearly challenged. This article draws on researchers' experiences of conducting single and longitudinal qualitative interviews with HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe during 2020. Reflecting on the methodological and ethical implications of doing such research during a pandemic allows researchers to surface assumptions about and question categories of 'vulnerability' and 'sensitivity'. We explore these categories in relation to three issues we have identified: (i) Blurred boundaries in researcher-participant relationships; (ii) Interviews as spaces to process experiences; and (iii) Motivations to conduct and participate in research. We demonstrate that qualitative interviews during a pandemic are embedded in sense-making processes for both the interviewer and participant, and as such may play an important role in coping and resilience. We therefore argue for ethically active research that critically engages with the concepts of 'vulnerability' and 'sensitivity', and underpinning assumptions, in context over time throughout the research process for current and future research with HCPs and other groups beyond pandemic situations. We thus aim to prepare researchers for managing these potential facets during the research process. We conclude with practical implications for managing emerging ethical tensions, methodological challenges and the wide-ranging possibilities and responsibilities for research with HCPs, urging researchers to consider the issues in advance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During infectious epidemics, healthcare workers are required to deliver traditional care while facing new pressures. Time and resource restrictions, a focus on saving lives and new safety measures can lead to traditional aspects of care delivery being neglected. Aim: Identify barriers to delivering end-of-life care, describe attempts to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and understand the impact this had on staff. Design: A rapid appraisal was conducted incorporating a rapid review of policies from the United Kingdom, semi-structured telephone interviews with healthcare workers, and a review of mass print media news stories and social media posts describing healthcare worker's experiences of delivering care during the pandemic. Data were coded and analysed using framework analysis. Setting/Participants: From a larger ongoing study, 22 interviews which mentioned death or caring for patients at end-of-life, eight government and National Health Service policies affecting end-of-life care delivery, eight international news media stories and 3440 publicly available social media posts were identified. The social media analysis centred around 274 original tweets with the highest reach, engagement and relevance. Incorporating multiple workstreams provided a broad perspective of end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Results: Three themes were developed: (1) restrictions to traditional care, (2) striving for new forms of care and (3) establishing identity and resilience. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic prohibited the delivery of traditional care as practical barriers restricted human connections. Staff prioritised communication and comfort orientated tasks to re-establish compassion at end-of-life and displayed resilience by adjusting their goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social scientists have a robust history of contributing to better understandings of and responses to disease outbreaks. The implementation of qualitative research in the context of infectious epidemics, however, continues to lag behind in the delivery, credibility, and timeliness of findings when compared with other research designs. The purpose of this article is to reflect on our experience of carrying out three research studies (a rapid appraisal, a qualitative study based on interviews, and a mixed-methods survey) aimed at exploring health care delivery in the context of COVID-19. We highlight the importance of qualitative data to inform evidence-based public health responses and provide a way forward to global research teams who wish to implement similar rapid qualitative studies. We reflect on the challenges of setting up research teams, obtaining ethical approval, collecting and analyzing data in real-time and sharing actionable findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]