COVID-19'a karşı geliştirilen yerli aşının klinik faz çalışmalarına katılan gönüllüler ile anket çalışması

Year 2025, Volume: 8 Issue: 5, 765 - 769, 16.09.2025

Zafer Sezer , Ahmet İnal , Seda Caymaz Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1733877

Abstract

Amaç:
Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin ilk yerli COVID-19 aşısı olan Turkovac’ın Faz 1 ve Faz 2 klinik araştırmalarına katılan gönüllülerin sosyodemografik özelliklerini, katılım motivasyonlarını ve deneyimlerini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Yöntem:
Araştırmaya toplam 230 gönüllü katılmıştır. Katılımcıların demografik bilgileri ve klinik araştırmalara ilişkin görüşleri yapılandırılmış bir anket formu kullanılarak toplanmıştır.
Bulgular:
Gönüllülerin büyük çoğunluğu erkektir (%76,1) ve şehir merkezlerinde yaşamaktadır (%87,8). Katılımcıların %91,7’si Faz 2 çalışmasına, %8,3’ü ise Faz 1 çalışmasına katılmıştır. Gönüllülerin çoğu, katılım motivasyonlarının yerli aşıya duydukları güvenden kaynaklandığını belirtmiştir. Ayrıca, önemli bir kısmı klinik araştırma deneyimini olumlu değerlendirmiş ve gelecekteki çalışmalara katılmaya istekli olduklarını ifade etmiştir.
Sonuç:
Bu çalışmanın bulguları, gelecekte yapılacak klinik araştırmaların planlanmasında ve gönüllü katılımını artırmaya yönelik etkili stratejilerin geliştirilmesinde yol gösterici olabilir.

Keywords

Anket , COVID-19 , Gönüllü , Klinik araştırmalar , Turkovac , Yerli aşı

Survey study on volunteers participating in clinical phase trials of the national vaccine developed against COVID-19

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the sociodemographic characteristics, motivations for participation, and experiences of volunteers who took part in the phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials of Turkovac, the first national COVID-19 vaccine developed in Turkiye.
Methods: A total of 230 volunteers participated in the study. Data on their demographics and perspectives on clinical research were collected using a structured questionnaire.
Results: The majority of the volunteers were male (76.1%) and residing in urban areas (87.8%). Of all participants, 91.7% were involved in the phase 2 trial and 8.3% in the phase 1 trial. Most volunteers reported that their motivation for participation was based on trust in the national vaccine. Furthermore, a significant part of the participants evaluated their clinical trial experience positively and expressed willingness to participate in future studies.
Conclusion: The findings of this study may provide valuable insights for the planning of future clinical trials and the development of effective strategies to increase volunteer participation.

Keywords

Survey , COVID-19 , volunteer , clinical trials , Turkovac , national vaccine

Ethical Statement

Approval was received for this study from the Erciyes University Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Approval No: 2021/149).

Thanks

We would like to thank all our volunteers who contributed to the national vaccine study and our team for their efforts.

References

• Lin Y, Hu Z, Zhao Q, Alias H, Danaee M, Wong LP. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine demand and hesitancy: a nationwide online survey in China. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(12):e0008961. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0008961
• Vaccines and immunization: what is vaccination? https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/vaccines-and-immunization-what-is-vaccination (Updated 01.04.2025).
• Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, Lidolt G, Denker ML. Barriers of influenza vaccination intention and behavior-a systematic review of influenza vaccine hesitancy, 2005-2016. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170550. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170550
• Ozdarendeli A, Sezer Z, Pavel STI, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated whole virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, TURKOVAC, in healthy adults: interim results from randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 and 2 trials. Vaccine. 2023;41(2):380-390. doi:10.1016/ j.vaccine.2022.10.093.
• Sezer Z. COVID-19 aşı klinik araştırmaları. Klinik araştırmalar. Editörler , Özet A, Tunçok Y, Özdemir N, Yazıcı O. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Turkiye Klinikleri; 2022. p.169-74.
• Kochhar S, Salmon DA. Planning for COVID-19 vaccines safety surveillance. Vaccine. 2020;38(40):6194-6198. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020. 07.013
• Mazıcıoğlu MM, Göğüsten B, Erenmemişoğlu A. İlaç biyoeşdeğerlik çalışmalarında katılımcı profili. Turk Klin J Med Sci. 2004;24(4):328-331.
• Erdoğdu Y, Koçoğlu F, Sevim C. COVID-19 pandemisi sürecinde anksiyete ile umutsuzluk düzeylerinin psikososyal ve demografik değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Klin Psikiyatr Derg. 2020:23. doi:10.5505/kpd.2020.35403
• Karlsson LC, Soveri A, Lewandowsky S, et al. Fearing the disease or the vaccine: the case of COVID-19. Personal Individ Differ. 2021;172:110590. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110590
• Lin Y, Hu Z, Zhao Q, Alias H, Danaee M, Wong LP. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine demand and hesitancy: a nationwide online survey in China. PLoS Neglect Tropic Dis. 2020;14(12):e0008961. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0008961
• Freeman D, Loe BS, Chadwick A, et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II. Psychol Med. 2022;52(14):3127-3141. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720005188
• Ding EL, Powe NR, Manson JE, Sherber NS, Braunstein JB. Sex differences in perceived risks, distrust, and willingness to participate in clinical trials: a randomized study of cardiovascular prevention trials. Arch Int Med. 2007;167(9):905-912. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.9.905
• van Diemen J, Verdonk P, Chieffo A, et al. The importance of achieving sex- and gender-based equity in clinical trials: a call to action. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(31):2990-2994. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab457
• Lobato L, Bethony JM, Pereira FB, Grahek SL, Diemert D, Gazzinelli MF. Impact of gender on the decision to participate in a clinical trial: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1156. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1156
• Almeida L, Azevedo B, Nunes T, Vaz-da-Silva M, Soares-da-Silva P. Why healthy subjects volunteer for phase I studies and how they perceive their participation? Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63(11):1085-1094. doi:10.1007/s00228-007-0368-3
• Bigorra J, Baños JE. Weight of financial reward in the decision by medical students and experienced healthy volunteers to participate in clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1990;38(5):443-446. doi:10.1007/bf02336681
• Hassar M, Pocelinko R, Weintraub M, Nelson D, Thomas G, Lasagna L. Free-living volunteer’s motivations and attitudes toward pharmacologic studies in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1977;21(5):515-519. doi:10.1002/cpt 1977215515
• Hermann R, Heger-Mahn D, Mahler M, et al. Adverse events and discomfort in studies on healthy subjects: the volunteer’s perspective. A survey conducted by the German Association for Applied Human Pharmacology. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;53(3-4):207-214. doi:10.1007/s002280050364
• Halpern SD. Financial incentives for research participation: empirical questions, available answers and the burden of further proof. Am J Med Sci. 2011;342(4):290-293. doi:10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3182297925
• Dubé È, Ward JK, Verger P, MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy, acceptance, and anti-vaccination: trends and future prospects for public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021;42:175-191. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102240
• Oliveira IS, Cardoso LS, Ferreira IG, et al. Anti-vaccination movements in the world and in Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2022;55:e05922021. doi:10.1590/0037-8682-0592-2021
• Mills MC, Salisbury D. The challenges of distributing COVID-19 vaccinations. E Clin Med. 2020 (8);31:100674. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020. 100674
• Barrett JS, Yang SY, Muralidharan K, et al. Considerations for addressing anti-vaccination campaigns: how did we get here and what can we do about it? Clin Transl Sci. 2022;15(6):1380-1386. doi:10.1111/cts.13273
• Fasce A, Schmid P, Holford DL, Bates L, Gurevych I, Lewandowsky S. A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling. Nat Hum Behav. 2023;7(9):1462-1480. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01644-3
• Harapan H, Wagner AL, Yufika A, et al. Acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine in Southeast Asia: a cross-sectional study in Indonesia. Front Public Health. 2020;8:381. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00381