Abstract

Potential participants for clinical trials which aim to define treatments for life-threatening conditions are often extremely unwell. When exploring why individuals participate in clinical trials one common observation is a misplaced expectation of personal benefit - a therapeutic misconception. The care offered in some clinical trials is of a higher standard than is routinely available and this has led to criticism around the freedom of choice to enrol - structural coercion. We embedded an ethnographic study within a randomised controlled trial for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Gaborone, Botswana and Kampala, Uganda. We aimed to gain an understanding of decision-making around the trial and how this was impacted by the study design and broader social context. We conducted in-depth interviews with trial participants, surrogate decision makers and researchers, combined these with direct observations and analysed data using thematic analysis. Between January 2020 and June 2021 we interviewed 89 individuals. We found previous exposure to and awareness of clinical research was limited, as was understanding of the trial objectives and design. Through observations and engagement with healthcare facilities decision-makers were able to identify the trial as providing the best possible chance of survival. Hesitation and reluctance were mostly due to fear of lumbar punctures which was sometimes based on rumours but often based on tragic personal experience. Despite fear, and sometimes conviction that they would die, individuals agreed to consent, often against the wishes of family members. Reassurance and confidence came from trust in routine care staff and the research team but also from fellow participants and their surrogates. We argue that participants made informed decisions based on a therapeutic expectation from the trial and that rather than being the result of structural coercion this was an informed and voluntary choice.