@Article{info:doi/10.2196/54921,
author="Zola Matuvanga, Tr{\'e}sor
and Paviotti, Antea
and Bikioli Bolombo, Freddy
and Lemey, Gwen
and Larivi{\`e}re, Ynke
and Salloum, Maha
and Isekah Osang'ir, Bernard
and Esanga Longomo, Emmanuel
and Milolo, Solange
and Matangila, Junior
and Maketa, Vivi
and Mitashi, Patrick
and Van Damme, Pierre
and Muhindo-Mavoko, Hypolite
and Van geertruyden, Jean-Pierre",
title="Long-Term Experiences of Health Care Providers Using Iris Scanning as an Identification Tool in a Vaccine Trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Qualitative Study",
journal="JMIR Form Res",
year="2025",
month="Mar",
day="6",
volume="9",
pages="e54921",
keywords="iris scan; vaccine trial; iris; perception; experience; views; biometric identification; Democratic Republic of the Congo",
abstract="Background: Iris scanning has increasingly been used for biometric identification over the past decade, with continuous advancements and expanding applications. To better understand the acceptability of this technology, we report the long-term experiences of health care providers and frontline worker participants with iris scanning as an identification tool in the EBL2007 Ebola vaccine trial conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Objective: This study aims to document the long-term experiences of using iris scanning for identity verification throughout the vaccine trial. Methods: Two years after the start of the EBL2007 vaccine trial (February to March 2022), 69 trial participants---including nurses, first aid workers, midwives, and community health workers---were interviewed through focus group discussions. Additionally, 13 in-depth individual interviews were conducted with physicians involved in the trial, iris scan operators, trial staff physicians, and trial participants who declined iris scanning. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify key themes. Results: Initially, interviewees widely accepted the iris scan and viewed it as a distinctive tool for identifying participants in the EBL2007 vaccine trial. However, over time, perceptions became less favorable. Some participants expressed concerns that their vision had diminished shortly after using the tool and continued to decline until the end of the study. Others reported experiencing perceived vision loss long after the trial had concluded. However, no vision impairment was reported as an adverse event or assessed in the trial as being linked to the iris scan, which uses a previously certified safe infrared light for scanning. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the sustained acceptability and perceived high accuracy of the iris scan tool for uniquely identifying adult participants in a vaccine trial over time. Continued efforts to systematically disseminate and reinforce information about the function and safety of this technology are essential. Clearly presenting iris scanning as a safe procedure could help dispel misconceptions, concerns, and perceived risks among potential users in vaccine trials. ",
issn="2561-326X",
doi="10.2196/54921",
url="https://formative.jmir.org/2025/1/e54921",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/54921",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40053756"
}