ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring the participant experience in controlled human infection model (CHIM) trials: A modified grounded theory study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Motivations and experiences in controlled human infection trials vs. phase I clinical trials: a survey study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControlled human infection model (CHIM) trials are useful tools for accelerating vaccine development through the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers in a controlled environment to study the course of disease in humans. CHIM trials may pose physical, psychological, and social harms to participants. Participants are subjected to long inpatient stays and daily sample collection, which may be uncomfortable. Very little is known about the CHIM trial participant experience and decision-making process.
methodsWe conducted a modified grounded theory study, embedded within the Canadian Center for Vaccinology (CCfV)'s Bordetella pertussis CHIM trial. Twenty six participants engaged in semi-structured interviews at four time periods throughout their year-long involvement in the CHIM trial, using a constant comparative approach of simultaneous data collection and analysis. This process continued until saturation was reached and an emerging theoretical model was constructed depicting the CHIM trial participant experience over time.
resultsThe emergent conceptual model centered around the core category "A Trusting Partnership", depicting the evolution of the participant-researcher relationship throughout the experience. Establishing trust was critical during the decision-making phase, facilitated through transparent researcher-participant communication and consideration of past experiences and values. Supporting the trusting partnership during the inpatient isolation phase was facilitated through ongoing researcher-participant engagement and emotional support. During outpatient participation, maintaining the trusting partnership was achieved through effective communication, consistent follow-up care, and recognition of participants' contributions. Quality improvement (QI) recommendations were identified across all phases of CHIM trial participation.
conclusionsResearcher-participant trust is an integral component of the CHIM trial participant experience. QI recommendations should be taken into consideration when planning and coordinating future CHIM trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.