Factors related to willingness to participate in biomedical research on neglected tropical diseases: A systematic review

Abstract

Background

Understanding the barriers to and facilitators of participation in research could enhance recruitment rates for biomedical research on Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) and help to avoid the problems associated with poor recruitment.

Methodology/principal findings

We conducted a systematic review to identify factors related to willingness to participate in biomedical research on Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs). Our search included the following databases: Medline/PubMed, Embase (Embase.com), Global Index Medicus (WHO), Web of Science (Core collection), and gray literature. We included studies that analyzed or reported factors associated with willingness to participate in NTD research, using either quantitative methods (such as clinical trials, cohorts, and cross-sectional studies) or qualitative methods (such as focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews, and in-depth interviews). There were no language restrictions, but we excluded review articles, notes, case reports, letters to the editor, editor’s notes, extended abstracts, proceedings, patents, editorials, and other editorial materials.

Screening of citations, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment was conducted by independent reviewers, according to the study protocol registered on PROSPERO. For analyses, we assessed the frequency of barriers, enablers, and the frequency of recruitment interventions mentioned in the included studies. The protocol for this systematic review was registered under registration number CRD42020212536. (S1 Appendix)

We identified 2070 citations, 1470 from the databases, and 600 from other sources. From those, eleven studies were selected for data extraction and analysis. The studies were conducted in Africa, Asia, and North America. Personal health benefits, monetary benefits, and community engagement and sensitization strategies were identified as the main reasons for participating in biomedical research on Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs). However, distrust in researchers, lack of knowledge about research methods among potential participants, and previous negative experiences were identified as the main barriers to participating in biomedical research on NTDs.

Conclusions/significance

This systematic review provides recommendations for improving adherence to biomedical research on Neglected Tropical Diseases, which can be applied in practice.

Citation:Raimundo-Silva V, Marques CT, Fonseca JR, Martínez-Silveira MS, Reis MG (2024) Factors related to willingness to participate in biomedical research on neglected tropical diseases: A systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 18(3): e0011996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996

Editor:Felix Bongomin, Gulu University, UGANDA

Received:October 24, 2023; Accepted:February 14, 2024; Published: March 12, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Raimundo-Silva et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability:All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding:This study was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH), Grant/Award Numbers: R01 AI121330 to MGR, FAPESB-PNX0001/2015 to MGR for the submitted work, and partially supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq (Proc. Proc. 306464/2016-0 and 423833/2018-9) to VRS. VRS is currently receiving a scholarship from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Since recruitment is an essential step in biomedical research involving human subjects, poor recruitment increases the possibility of the study being underpowered and introducing selection bias, which can lead to the overgeneralization of results [1,2]. Most studies fail to achieve their original recruitment rate, and around half of them need to extend the enrollment period. One of the main solutions to address poor recruitment is to extend the length of the research. However, this approach increases the cost and workload of the research team [3,4]. Researchers usually have to manage limited resources for their research, and having knowledge about facilitators and barriers of research, especially during the recruitment stage, can be helpful for better planning and overcoming challenges. In the past two decades, numerous studies have examined recruitment in various contexts [3,5–7], and have reported on barriers, motivations, and recruitment strategies that vary based on the research setting, methodology, and target population [8].

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) as a diverse group of communicable diseases that are prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions, affecting approximately one billion people and costing developing economies billions of dollars every year [9]. As of June 25th, 2020, WHO listed 20 diseases in its NTD portfolio [10]. Considering that NTDs are more prevalent in socioeconomically vulnerable communities, social determinants such as poverty, limited healthcare services, and illiteracy may limit the efficacy of recruitment [11].

In order to address the social and financial impacts caused by NTDs, public and private institutions have funded interventions aimed at controlling, eliminating, and eradicating those diseases [12]. Research plays a crucial role in providing evidence to improve interventions for preventing and treating NTDs. Research to identify etiological agents, disease management, and cost-benefit analysis is essential for defining what interventions should be implemented and what the likely impact would be in the contexts where they will be applied [13]. However, biomedical research involving human subjects, especially in the context of scarce resources, faces many barriers [5].

Research on NTDs has been underfunded, with only $100 million allocated in the United States in 2016, compared to $1.5 billion allocated to research on other diseases such as malaria, human immunodeficiency virus, and tuberculosis combined [14]. Since the recruitment problem directly impacts the research results and considering the scarce resources, it is necessary to study and better understand the reasons for this problem and the possible solutions. However, we did not find any systematic review that focuses specifically on the reasons why people refuse to participate in biomedical NTD research. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to increase the understanding of the reasons for and against participating in biomedical research on NTD.

Methods

The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42020212536. (S1 Appendix)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were followed for reporting systematic reviews in this article. (S2 Appendix)

Search strategy and selection criteria

The inclusion criteria for this systematic review were studies that reported factors associated with willingness to participate in biomedical research on NTDs. The types of studies included were quantitative studies (e.g., clinical trials, cohorts, cross-sectional studies) and qualitative studies (e.g., focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews, and in-depth interviews). There were no language restrictions, but reviews, notes, case reports, letters to the editor, editor’s notes, extended abstracts, proceedings, patents, editorials, and other editorial materials were excluded. There was no restriction on the publication period of scientific publications.

The search strategy was based on four main steps that involved combining terms and subject headings and managing resources for the search strategy according to each database. The first step aimed to recover biomedical studies and other study designs for clinical research, while the second step recovered studies reporting community participation in research. The third step focused on studies reporting willingness or unwillingness to participate in research, and the fourth step aimed to recover studies on NTD, for which all terms related to the list of Neglected Tropical Diseases defined by the World Health Organization were included. In the final stage of the search strategy, the four steps were combined to obtain the final result. No limits or filter were used.

The searches in database were conducted by two researchers (MMS and VRS). We have chosen to utilize the following electronic databases: Medline via PubMed, Embase via Embase.com by Elsevier, Web of Science Core Collection via Clarivate Analytics and Global Index Medicus via World Health Organization (WHO) which is a platform that allows simultaneous searches in the following databases: African Index Medicus (AIM), Latin American and the Caribbean Literature on Health Science (LILACS), Western Pacific Region Index Medicus (WPRIM), Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR), Index Medicus for the South-East Asian Region (IMSEAR). The PubMed search was conducted in July 2020, while the Embase, Global Index Medicus, and Web of Science searches were conducted in August 2020. In December 2020, a grey literature search was performed, and supplementary searches using the search strings "Willingness to participate in clinical trials" and "neglected tropical diseases" were conducted on Google Scholar. The first 100 results by relevance were selected and screened. After the screening step, a systematic citation search (“snowballing”) was conducted using the tool Connect Papers to collect all references cited in the included studies, as well as all citations received by them. All papers found were managed using the Mendeley software, which divided them according to the database they belonged to, removed duplicates (VRS) using Mendeley’s duplicate identification strategy, and then manually.

The reproducible search strategies for all databases are presented in Supporting Information. (S3 Appendix)

Studies selection

The scientific publications found after searching the indexed databases were screened in two stages: 1) eligibility criteria assessment through the review of titles and abstracts, and 2) eligibility criteria assessment through the full-text review. Both stages were conducted independently by two reviewers (JRF and VRS), and disagreements were resolved through discussion. The Mendeley software was employed for scientific publication selection.

Due to the time gap between the creation of the search strategy in 2020 and the commencement of writing this paper, we decided to update the search strategy in April 2023. We also reevaluated the study selection process with the aim of identifying articles published between August 2020 and April 2023. This step was conducted by a single reviewer, VRS.

Data collection

Data extraction from the papers was carried out by three independent reviewers (CTM, JRF, and VRS) to avoid perception bias, using Microsoft Excel software and Google Sheets programs. The following data were extracted: author name, year of publication, country, and continent where the research was conducted, NTD, study design, major study question, population, setting, nature of the study, and nationality of the corresponding author. The nature of the study was classified as hypothetical if subjects were asked about factors related to participation in hypothetical NTD biomedical research, retrospective if subjects who had been invited to participate in biomedical NTD research in the past were asked about factors related to research participation, and prospective if subjects were asked before being invited to participate in biomedical NTD research about factors related to research participation. The nationality of the corresponding author was included as a variable to assess whether the research leader was familiar with the environment where the willingness to participate was researched. Finally, barriers and facilitators for participation, and recruitment interventions reported in the studies were extracted. A guide was adopted with the meaning of each data category to enable data extraction and avoid discrepancies between reviewers.

Data analyses

We adapted the categories of reasons for participation and non-participation utilized by Browne et al [15]. We classified the enablers for participating into five categories: personal benefit, benefits for others, agreeable research aspects, social acceptance, and previous knowledge. We also classified the barriers to participating into five categories: physical harm, social harm, practical inconveniences, disagreement with research aspects, and personal opinions.

The four categories which we utilized to classify the recruitment interventions were adapted from UyBico et al 2007 [16] and are the following: community outreach, referrals, social marketing, and health systems.

In order to summarize results, we take into consideration the frequency of citation found in the qualitative included studies, while in included quantitative study, we considered the facilitators and barriers that were reported by the authors as statistically significant.

Quality assessment of included studies

Two reviewers (CTM and VRS) independently performed the assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. For qualitative studies, we used the CASP Qualitative Studies Checklist. Whereas for cross-sectional studies, we used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies.

Results

Search results

The search resulted in a total of 1470 citations, out of which only ten publications met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. One of the publications by Pérez-Guerra C et al [17]. included two studies, one taken in 2006 and the other in 2010. Those studies have different samples and report different enablers and barriers to participating in biomedical research. Therefore, we prefer to analyze them separately in our review. Fig 1 summarizes the study selection.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996.g001

Study characteristics

Table 1 presents an overview of the included studies, which were published between 2009 and 2021. The majority of these studies were conducted in Africa (n = 8), followed by America (n = 2), and Asia (n = 1). Out of the 20 Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) categorized by the WHO, the included studies focused on only five. Five studies investigated willingness to participate in research related to podoconiosis, three studies examined willingness to participate in dengue research, one study explored willingness to participate in schistosomiasis research, one study addressed willingness to participate in studies on onchocerciasis, and one study delved into willingness to participate in mycetoma research. Nearly all of the studies (n = 10) employed qualitative methods, with only one employing quantitative methods. The majority of the studies (n = 8) were carried out in rural areas, while the remainder were conducted in urban or peri-urban areas (n = 3). All of the studies had corresponding authors from the same countries where the studies were conducted. The majority of the studies (n = 8) had a nature prospective, while two had a nature hypothetical approach, and one employed a nature retrospective approach.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996.t001

Quality assessment of included studies

The ten qualitative studies were assessed based on nine quality criteria of CASP [27]. Each criterion was given either of the following three options “YES” if a criterion was met, or “CAN’T TELL” if the information present in the study is not enough to have a conclusion about the criteria, or “NO” if a criterion was not met. All studies (100%) were judged as having a clear statement of the aims of the research as well as having a qualitative methodology. Regarding the research design, six studies (54,5%) were judged as having an appropriate design to address the aims of the research, while there were also six studies (54,5%) judged as having a recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research. Nine (81,8%) were judged as having collected the data in a way that addressed the research issue, however, only two studies (18,1%) were judged as having adequately considered the relationship between the researcher and participants. There were seven studies (63,6%) that considered ethical issues, eight studies (72,7%) were judged as having done sufficiently rigorous data analysis, and another seven studies (63,63%) were judged as having clear statement findings. Only one cross-sectional study was assessed based on the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies [28] and matched all quality criteria of this tool.

Factors favoring participation in biomedical research on NTD.

In this step, we did not differentiate between qualitative and quantitative studies. Table 2 summarizes the reasons favoring participation in biomedical research on NTDs and citations. The frequency was calculated considering the number of studies out of a total of eleven that cited at least one specific reason for participating in research.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Factors favoring participation in biomedical research on NTD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996.t002

The most frequently cited reason favoring participation in biomedical research on NTDS was monetary benefits or other rewards, as reported by six studies. Additionally, personal health benefits, community engagement and sensitization strategies, and comprehensive information for the study population were each cited by five studies.

Factors serving as barriers to participation in biomedical research on NTD.

Table 3 summarizes the denial of participation in biomedical research on NTD and citations. The frequency was calculated considering the number of studies out of a total of ten that cited at least one specific reason against participating in research.

The most frequently cited reason serving as barriers to participation in biomedical research on NTDS was lack of knowledge, as reported by eight studies. Additionally, mistrust was cited by six studies.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. Factors serving as barriers to participation in biomedical research on NTD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996.t003

We designed Fig 2 to make it more accessible for researchers to apply information on facilitators and barriers in the planning of studies on Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs). In this figure, we outline recommended actions and those to be avoided before and during the recruitment phase, as well as after the completion of the research.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Examples of potential solutions to improve recruitment rates.

Also see Tables 2 and 3 for other potential solutions. This Figure has been designed using images from ‘openclipart.org’.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996.g002

Recruitment interventions.

Table 4 summarizes the types of recruitment interventions and citations. The frequency was calculated considering the number of studies out of a total of seven that cited at least one type of recruitment intervention.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 4. Types of recruitment interventions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996.t004

The most common recruitment intervention applied in biomedical research on NTDs was contact with community leaders and organizations, as reported by five studies. Additionally, support from community health workers and referrals from friends and family were each cited by four studies.

Discussion

In this systematic review, we considered the frequency of citations found in the included studies to determine the main enablers and barriers to participation in biomedical research on NTDs. Monetary benefits or other rewards, personal health benefits, community engagement strategies and sensitization, and comprehensive information were identified as the main enablers, while lack of knowledge, and mistrust were identified as the main barriers.

After analyzing the literature on willingness to participate (WTP) in research, we have concluded that factors such as personal health benefits and altruism are commonly cited regardless of the disease being studied [29–31]. However, we have observed that depending on the field in which WTP research is being conducted, some barriers and enablers are more frequently reported. This suggests that the challenges in recruiting participants have specificities related to the context in which the research is carried out, such as the socioeconomic conditions and the disease being studied [29–38].

In a systematic review conducted by Browne et al. [15] on WTP in research involving human beings in low- and middle-income countries, a set of barriers and enablers for participation in research were identified [15]. While eleven of those barriers and enablers were not found in the studies included in our review, eleven barriers and nine enablers present in our review were not cited in the article of Browne et al [15]. Those new factors favoring participation exclusively found in our review are the following community strategies of engagement and sensibilization, comprehensive information for the study population, expenditure refund, integrate local community members in the research planning and execution, positive previous experience with researches, respect for the local values, support from local leadership, to ensure time enough for discussion between community members and relatives, and written and oral informed consent form [15]. Those new factors serving as barriers exclusively found in our review are the following: communication problems between researchers and participants, disagreement with research requirement, false stories, gender questions, local political conflicts, long studies, mistaken information about previous researches, negative influence from media, religious beliefs, the large interval between sensibilization and recruitment, and “therapeutic misconception”.

This divergence between our founding and the founding of Browne et al [15] suggests that although the socioeconomic context is relevant, it alone does not fully explain the barriers and facilitators for participation in research, in such a way that intrinsic factors related to NTDs, such as the natural history of the disease, risk factors, and the epidemiological chain, can generate specific facilitators and barriers for this group of diseases

The impact of multiple factors on WTP in research can be exemplified by the role of stigmatization in the decision not to participate in a podoconiosis genetic study [23]. Without a study on WTP in research in the context of podoconiosis, it would not have been revealed that being identified as a subject of a genetic study of podoconiosis causes social disapproval and stigmatization for potential participants, leading to low recruitment rates. This illustrates the role of cultural aspects and the contribution of specificities of the disease covered by the study of WTP in research.

Our review highlighted the crucial role of social support in individuals’ choice to participate in a study. Therefore, strategies such as community engagement are useful for improving recruitment rates. We also identified that lack of clarity in information has a negative impact on WTP in research. Thus, it would be important to expand the use of social media, such as journals, social networks, radio, and television, to share necessary information about the research for potential participants. In addition, we recommend the following types of recruitment interventions in the context of research on NTDS: contact with community leaders and organizations with support from community health workers, face-to-face in the community setting, and recommendations from friends and family.

In conclusion, this systematic review presents recommendations that can be applied to improve adherence in biomedical research on Neglected Tropical Diseases. A study conducted outside the context of NTDs showed that previous qualitative investigations of barriers and enablers of the recruitment process led to better recruitment rates in subsequent biomedical research [37–38]. Thus, applying the knowledge present in our review could change the probable outcome of a low recruitment rate in biomedical research carried out in the context of NTDs.

We identified some potential limitations of this systematic review. Despite the wide search conducted in the literature, only eleven studies met the inclusion criteria of our systematic review. Out of the 20 diseases classified as NTDs by WHO, we found studies on only five: dengue, mycetoma, podoconiosis, schistosomiasis, and onchocerciasis. This shows that the theme of WTP in research on NTDs is itself neglected, making it difficult to create and adopt strategies that avoid insufficient recruitment of subjects for research.

On the other hand, this systematic review has several strong points. The steps of selection, assessment, and extraction of the data were done independently by at least two authors. This reduces the chance of introducing bias, such as selection bias. Furthermore, we conducted a wide search in the literature with the assistance of a specialist (MMS). In general, this systematic review closely fulfills the methodology criterion of a systematic review, has been published previously in the protocol, and follows the recommendations for conducting a systematic review established by PRISMA and the Joanna Briggs Institute.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Protocol registered in PROSPERO.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996.s001

(PDF)

S2 Appendix. PRISMA checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Appendix. Search strategies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996.s003

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Jorgana Soares, Luciano Kalabric, Rita Fernandes, and Ronald Blanton for the final review of the manuscript. We also express our gratitude to Caroline Vieira and Thiago Cerqueira for their valuable comments, which contributed to the development of Fig 2.

References

1. 1. Fam E, Ferrante JM. Lessons learned recruiting minority participants for research in urban community health centers. J Natl Med Assoc. 2018;110: 44–52. pmid:29510843

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

2. 2. Froelicher ES, Lorig K. Who cares about recruitment anyway? Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48: 97. pmid:12401411

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

3. 3. McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7: 9. pmid:16603070

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

4. 4. Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3: e002360. pmid:23396504

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

5. 5. Mfutso-Bengo J, Masiye F, Molyneux M, Ndebele P, Chilungo A. Why do people refuse to take part in biomedical research studies? Evidence from a resource-poor area. Malawi Med J. 2008;20: 57–63. pmid:19537434

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

6. 6. Brannon EE, Kuhl ES, Boles RE, Aylward BS, Benoit Ratcliff M, Valenzuela JM, et al. Strategies for recruitment and retention of families from low-income, ethnic minority backgrounds in a longitudinal study of caregiver feeding and child weight. child heal care. 2013;42: 198–213. pmid:24078763

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

7. 7. George S, Duran N, Norris K. A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Am J Public Health. 2014;104: e16–e31. pmid:24328648

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

8. 8. Newington L, Metcalfe A. Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14: 10. pmid:24456229

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

9. 9. World Health Organization. Neglected tropical diseases. Available at: https://www.paho.org/en/campaigns/world-neglected-tropical-diseases-day-2022. Accessed 21 February 2024

10. 10. World Health Organization. Neglected tropical diseases. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/neglected-tropical-diseases#:~:text=NTDs%20include%3A%20Buruli%20ulcer%3B%20Chagas,rabies%3B%20scabies%20and%20other%20ectoparasitoses%3B. Accessed 21 February 2024

11. 11. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Killen J, Grady C. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis. 2004;189: 930–937. pmid:14976611

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

12. 12. Uniting to Combat Neglected Tropical Diseases. Resources [Internet]. 2023. [cited 20 Dec 2023]. Available from: https://unitingtocombatntds.org/en/neglected-tropical-diseases/resources/

13. 13. Ackley C, Elsheikh M, Zaman S. Scoping review of neglected tropical disease interventions and health promotion: A framework for successful NTD interventions as evidenced by the literature. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15: e0009278. pmid:34228729

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

14. 14. Reed SL, McKerrow JH. Why funding for neglected tropical diseases should be a global priority. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67: 323–326. pmid:29688342

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

15. 15. Browne JL, Rees CO, van Delden JJM, Agyepong I, Grobbee DE, Edwin A, et al. The willingness to participate in biomedical research involving human beings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Trop Med Int Heal. 2019;24: 264–279. pmid:30565381

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

16. 16. UyBico SJ, Pavel S, Gross CP. Recruiting vulnerable populations into research: a systematic review of recruitment interventions. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22: 852–863. pmid:17375358

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

17. 17. Guerra CLP, Rodríguez-Acosta R, Soto-Gómez E, Zielinski-Gutierrez E, Peña-Orellana M, Santiago L, et al. Assessing the interest to participate in a dengue vaccine efficacy trial among residents of Puerto Rico. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2012;8: 905–915. pmid:22832259

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

18. 18. Harapan H, Anwar S, Bustaman A, Radiansyah A, Angraini P, Fasli R, et al. Community willingness to participate in a dengue study in Aceh Province, Indonesia. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0159139. pmid:27404663

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

19. 19. Gebresilase TT, Deresse Z, Tsegay G, Tessema TS, Aseffa A, Davey G, et al. Rapid ethical appraisal: a tool to design a contextualized consent process for a genetic study of podoconiosis in Ethiopia. Wellcome Open Res. 2017;2: 99.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

20. 20. Akun PR, Anguzu R, Ogwang R, Oryema JJI, Ningwa A, Idro R. Implementation of a community engagement program in the pathogenesis and treatment of nodding syndrome study in Uganda. Poster session presented at: 10th European Congress on Tropical Medicine and International health; 2017 Oct 16–20; Antwerp, Belgium. Trop Med Int Health. 2017;22 (suppl.1): 343.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

21. 21. Negussie H, Addissie T, Addissie A, Davey G. Preparing for and executing a randomised controlled trial of podoconiosis treatment in northern Ethiopia: the utility of rapid ethical assessment. Lammie PJ, organizador. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004531. pmid:26967654

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

22. 22. Sanya RE, Tumwesige E, Elliott AM, Seeley J. Perceptions about interventions to control schistosomiasis among the Lake Victoria Island communities of Koome, Uganda. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11. pmid:28968470

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

23. 23. Tekola F, Bull S, Farsides B, Newport MJ, Adeyemo A, Rotimi CN, et al. Impact of social stigma on the process of obtaining informed consent for genetic research on podoconiosis: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2009;10: 13. pmid:19698115

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

24. 24. Tekola F, Bull SJ, Farsides B, Newport MJ, Adeyemo A, Rotimi CN, et al. Tailoring consent to context: designing an appropriate consent process for a biomedical study in a low income setting. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3: e482. pmid:19621067

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

25. 25. Negash M, Chanyalew M, T Gebresilase T, Sintayehu B, Anteye T, Aseffa A, et al. Rapid ethical appraisal of stakeholder views on research prior to undertaking immunopathogenesis studies on podoconiosis in northeast Ethiopia during a period of social instability. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2021;115: 1026–1038. pmid:33570141

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

26. 26. Omer RF, Ahmed ES, Ali BM, Alhaj HE, Bakhiet SM, Mohamed ESW, et al. The challenges of recruitment in clinical trials in developing countries: the Mycetoma Research Centre experience. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2021;115: 397–405. pmid:33484566

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

27. 27. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Critical appraisal checklists [Internet]. Oxford; 2021. [cited 20 Dec 2023]. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

28. 28. Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools [Internet]. Adelaide [Australia]; 2020. [cited 20 Dec 2023]. Available: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools

29. 29. Paré Toe L, Ravinetto RM, Dierickx S, Gryseels C, Tinto H, Rouamba N, et al. Could the decision of trial participation precede the informed consent process? evidence from Burkina Faso. Choonara I, organizador. PLoS One. 2013;8: e80800. pmid:24260484

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

30. 30. Mahomed H, Shea J, Kafaar F, Hawkridge T, Hanekom WA, Hussey GD. Are adolescents ready for tuberculosis vaccine trials? Vaccine. 2008;26: 4725–4730. pmid:18620015

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

31. 31. Kufa T, Chihota V, Charalambous S, Verver S, Churchyard G. Willingness to participate in trials and to be vaccinated with new tuberculosis vaccines in HIV-infected adults. Public Health Action. 2013;3: 31–37. pmid:26392993

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

32. 32. Okall DO, Ondenge K, Nyambura M, Otieno FO, Hardnett F, Turner K, et al. Men who have sex with men in Kisumu, Kenya: comfort in accessing health services and willingness to participate in hiv prevention studies. J Homosex. 2014;61: 1712–1726. pmid:25089554

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

33. 33. Newman PA, Chakrapani V, Weaver J, Shunmugam M, Rubincam C. Willingness to participate in HIV vaccine trials among men who have sex with men in Chennai and Mumbai, India. Vaccine. 2014;32: 5854–5861. pmid:25173475

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

34. 34. Li Q, Luo F, Zhou Z, Li S, Liu Y, Li D, et al. Willingness to participate in HIV vaccine clinical trials among Chinese men who have sex with men. Vaccine. 2010;28: 4638–4643. pmid:20452428

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

35. 35. Jenkins RA. Willingness to participate in HIV-1 vaccine trials among young Thai men. Sex Transm Infect. 2000;76: 386–392. pmid:11141858

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

36. 36. Meque I, Dubé K, Bierhuizen L, Zango A, Veldhuijzen N, Cumbe F, et al. Willingness to participate in future HIV prevention trials in Beira, Mozambique. African J AIDS Res. 2014;13: 393–398. pmid:25555105

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

37. 37. Donovan J, Little P, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ. 2002;325: 766–770. pmid:12364308

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

38. 38. Almeida CH, Marques R de C, Reis DC, Melo JM do C, Diemert D, Gazzinelli MF. A pesquisa científica na saúde: uma análise sobre a participação de populações vulneráveis. Texto Context—Enferm. 2010;19: 104–111.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

Citation: Raimundo-Silva V, Marques CT, Fonseca JR, Martínez-Silveira MS, Reis MG (2024) Factors related to willingness to participate in biomedical research on neglected tropical diseases: A systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 18(3): e0011996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0011996

References

1. Fam E, Ferrante JM. Lessons learned recruiting minority participants for research in urban community health centers. J Natl Med Assoc. 2018;110: 44–52. pmid:29510843

2. Froelicher ES, Lorig K. Who cares about recruitment anyway? Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48: 97. pmid:12401411

3. McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7: 9. pmid:16603070

4. Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3: e002360. pmid:23396504

5. Mfutso-Bengo J, Masiye F, Molyneux M, Ndebele P, Chilungo A. Why do people refuse to take part in biomedical research studies? Evidence from a resource-poor area. Malawi Med J. 2008;20: 57–63. pmid:19537434

6. Brannon EE, Kuhl ES, Boles RE, Aylward BS, Benoit Ratcliff M, Valenzuela JM, et al. Strategies for recruitment and retention of families from low-income, ethnic minority backgrounds in a longitudinal study of caregiver feeding and child weight. child heal care. 2013;42: 198–213. pmid:24078763

7. George S, Duran N, Norris K. A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Am J Public Health. 2014;104: e16–e31. pmid:24328648

8. Newington L, Metcalfe A. Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14: 10. pmid:24456229

9. World Health Organization. Neglected tropical diseases. Available at: https://www.paho.org/en/campaigns/world-neglected-tropical-diseases-day-2022. Accessed 21 February 2024

10. World Health Organization. Neglected tropical diseases. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/neglected-tropical-diseases#:~:text=NTDs%20include%3A%20Buruli%20ulcer%3B%20Chagas,rabies%3B%20scabies%20and%20other%20ectoparasitoses%3B. Accessed 21 February 2024

11. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Killen J, Grady C. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis. 2004;189: 930–937. pmid:14976611

12. Uniting to Combat Neglected Tropical Diseases. Resources [Internet]. 2023. [cited 20 Dec 2023]. Available from: https://unitingtocombatntds.org/en/neglected-tropical-diseases/resources/

13. Ackley C, Elsheikh M, Zaman S. Scoping review of neglected tropical disease interventions and health promotion: A framework for successful NTD interventions as evidenced by the literature. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15: e0009278. pmid:34228729

14. Reed SL, McKerrow JH. Why funding for neglected tropical diseases should be a global priority. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67: 323–326. pmid:29688342

15. Browne JL, Rees CO, van Delden JJM, Agyepong I, Grobbee DE, Edwin A, et al. The willingness to participate in biomedical research involving human beings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Trop Med Int Heal. 2019;24: 264–279. pmid:30565381

16. UyBico SJ, Pavel S, Gross CP. Recruiting vulnerable populations into research: a systematic review of recruitment interventions. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22: 852–863. pmid:17375358

17. Guerra CLP, Rodríguez-Acosta R, Soto-Gómez E, Zielinski-Gutierrez E, Peña-Orellana M, Santiago L, et al. Assessing the interest to participate in a dengue vaccine efficacy trial among residents of Puerto Rico. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2012;8: 905–915. pmid:22832259

18. Harapan H, Anwar S, Bustaman A, Radiansyah A, Angraini P, Fasli R, et al. Community willingness to participate in a dengue study in Aceh Province, Indonesia. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0159139. pmid:27404663

19. Gebresilase TT, Deresse Z, Tsegay G, Tessema TS, Aseffa A, Davey G, et al. Rapid ethical appraisal: a tool to design a contextualized consent process for a genetic study of podoconiosis in Ethiopia. Wellcome Open Res. 2017;2: 99.

20. Akun PR, Anguzu R, Ogwang R, Oryema JJI, Ningwa A, Idro R. Implementation of a community engagement program in the pathogenesis and treatment of nodding syndrome study in Uganda. Poster session presented at: 10th European Congress on Tropical Medicine and International health; 2017 Oct 16–20; Antwerp, Belgium. Trop Med Int Health. 2017;22 (suppl.1): 343.

21. Negussie H, Addissie T, Addissie A, Davey G. Preparing for and executing a randomised controlled trial of podoconiosis treatment in northern Ethiopia: the utility of rapid ethical assessment. Lammie PJ, organizador. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004531. pmid:26967654

22. Sanya RE, Tumwesige E, Elliott AM, Seeley J. Perceptions about interventions to control schistosomiasis among the Lake Victoria Island communities of Koome, Uganda. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11. pmid:28968470

23. Tekola F, Bull S, Farsides B, Newport MJ, Adeyemo A, Rotimi CN, et al. Impact of social stigma on the process of obtaining informed consent for genetic research on podoconiosis: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2009;10: 13. pmid:19698115

24. Tekola F, Bull SJ, Farsides B, Newport MJ, Adeyemo A, Rotimi CN, et al. Tailoring consent to context: designing an appropriate consent process for a biomedical study in a low income setting. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3: e482. pmid:19621067

25. Negash M, Chanyalew M, T Gebresilase T, Sintayehu B, Anteye T, Aseffa A, et al. Rapid ethical appraisal of stakeholder views on research prior to undertaking immunopathogenesis studies on podoconiosis in northeast Ethiopia during a period of social instability. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2021;115: 1026–1038. pmid:33570141

26. Omer RF, Ahmed ES, Ali BM, Alhaj HE, Bakhiet SM, Mohamed ESW, et al. The challenges of recruitment in clinical trials in developing countries: the Mycetoma Research Centre experience. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2021;115: 397–405. pmid:33484566

27. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Critical appraisal checklists [Internet]. Oxford; 2021. [cited 20 Dec 2023]. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

28. Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools [Internet]. Adelaide [Australia]; 2020. [cited 20 Dec 2023]. Available: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools

29. Paré Toe L, Ravinetto RM, Dierickx S, Gryseels C, Tinto H, Rouamba N, et al. Could the decision of trial participation precede the informed consent process? evidence from Burkina Faso. Choonara I, organizador. PLoS One. 2013;8: e80800. pmid:24260484

30. Mahomed H, Shea J, Kafaar F, Hawkridge T, Hanekom WA, Hussey GD. Are adolescents ready for tuberculosis vaccine trials? Vaccine. 2008;26: 4725–4730. pmid:18620015

31. Kufa T, Chihota V, Charalambous S, Verver S, Churchyard G. Willingness to participate in trials and to be vaccinated with new tuberculosis vaccines in HIV-infected adults. Public Health Action. 2013;3: 31–37. pmid:26392993

32. Okall DO, Ondenge K, Nyambura M, Otieno FO, Hardnett F, Turner K, et al. Men who have sex with men in Kisumu, Kenya: comfort in accessing health services and willingness to participate in hiv prevention studies. J Homosex. 2014;61: 1712–1726. pmid:25089554

33. Newman PA, Chakrapani V, Weaver J, Shunmugam M, Rubincam C. Willingness to participate in HIV vaccine trials among men who have sex with men in Chennai and Mumbai, India. Vaccine. 2014;32: 5854–5861. pmid:25173475

34. Li Q, Luo F, Zhou Z, Li S, Liu Y, Li D, et al. Willingness to participate in HIV vaccine clinical trials among Chinese men who have sex with men. Vaccine. 2010;28: 4638–4643. pmid:20452428

35. Jenkins RA. Willingness to participate in HIV-1 vaccine trials among young Thai men. Sex Transm Infect. 2000;76: 386–392. pmid:11141858

36. Meque I, Dubé K, Bierhuizen L, Zango A, Veldhuijzen N, Cumbe F, et al. Willingness to participate in future HIV prevention trials in Beira, Mozambique. African J AIDS Res. 2014;13: 393–398. pmid:25555105

37. Donovan J, Little P, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ. 2002;325: 766–770. pmid:12364308

38. Almeida CH, Marques R de C, Reis DC, Melo JM do C, Diemert D, Gazzinelli MF. A pesquisa científica na saúde: uma análise sobre a participação de populações vulneráveis. Texto Context—Enferm. 2010;19: 104–111.