Rachel – Interview 24
Rachel consented for her three children to take part in a Swine Flu Vaccine Trial earlier in 2010. Her interest in Clinical Trials was a primary motive for taking part.
Rachel is 35 years of age and lives with her husband and their three children, ages three, five and seven years. Rachel is a part time trial manager and a Research Fellow. The initial invitation came as part of a mail shot looking for young children to take part in a Swine Flu Vaccine Trial.
Rachel explains her reason for consenting for her children to take part’ One, I was interested in clinical trials anyway, because it’s what I do. So I thought I;ve got to give something back at some point;. And Well, I can actually help with this one
Rachel and her husband initially checked the literature and trials that had been done on these particular vaccines before going ahead. Rachel explains I felt quite confident that there was nothing harmful in those vaccines, and it really just was a comparison study between the two vaccines to see which, which would be the most effective. So that was my primary motivation. The secondary motivation was that I felt good that they had got the vaccine earlier than anyone else. But I think it; that was quite secondar. She later continues by saying I wasn’t anti vaccines at that point, but I wasn’t particularly pro the swine flu vaccine either, and wasn’t sure how necessary I felt it wa.
Although the trial was randomised, there were just two vaccines being used, and children were randomised to receive one or the other vaccine. At that point, they knew which of the vaccines the children were going to receive.
The trial involved three visits to a local hospital that involved blood tests and the vaccine injections. The first visit she explains involved quite a long in-depth interview explaining the pros and cons and making sure that she fully understood and signing the consent form. She said that the blood tests were the hardest part for the children and only one of her children managed to have the final blood test. However, as there were other means of testing whether the vaccine had been successful this was fine.
Each of the children received a monetary reward at the final visit, which was unexpected. However, Rachel felt that providing monetary incentives is probably not a good idea, although travel and extra costs are acceptable. Overall Rachel felt that the trial was well organised. Although there was a dissemination day organised for participants, Rachel was unable to attend this and has received no other information regarding the final results of the study. This is something Rachel feels is important and would have liked to receive a summary about what the final conclusions were, and which vaccine was proved to be more effective.