A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Norwegian Parents of Very Low Birthweight Infants Enrolled in a Randomized Nutritional Trial

Motivations for and against Participation in Neonatal Research: Insights from Interviews of Diverse Parents Approached for Neonatal Research in the US

OBJECTIVE

To describe parents' motivations for and against participation in neonatal research, including the views of those who declined participation.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed 44 semi-structured, qualitative interviews of parents approached for neonatal research. Here we describe their motivations for and against participation.

RESULTS

Altruism was an important reason parents chose to participate. Some hoped participation in research would benefit their infant. Burdens of participation to the family, such as transportation to follow up (distinct from risks/burdens to the infant), were often deciding factors among those who declined participation. Perceived risks to the infant were reasons against participation, but parents often did not differentiate between baseline risks and incremental risk of study participation. Concerns regarding their infant being treated like a "guinea pig" were common among those who declined. Finally, historical abuses and institutional racism were reported as important concerns by some research decliners from minoritized populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a diverse sample of parents approached to enroll their infant in neonatal research, motivations for and against participation emerged, which may be targets of future interventions. These motivations included reasons for participation which we may hope to encourage, such as altruism. They also included reasons against participation, which we may hope to, as feasible, eliminate, mitigate, or at least acknowledge. These findings can help clinical trialists, regulators, and funders attempting to improve neonatal research recruitment processes.

Experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research: insights from parent interviews

INTRODUCTION

Parents struggle with being asked to participate in neonatal research. Past work has largely failed to include views of minoritized parents, low-socioeconomic status parents, and those who declined research. We aimed to describe parents' preferences related to learning about eligibility for neonatal research.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews of parents who were asked to enroll their infant in neonatal research. Themes related to parental experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research were identified using content analysis.

RESULTS

Many parents desired greater involvement of their clinical team. Emotions at the time of recruitment were critically important to parents' experience, where were deeply impacted by interpersonal relationships with research staff.

DISCUSSION

Increased involvement of the clinical team and greater sensitivity to the stressors around parent and infant conditions at the time of recruitment for neonatal research should be considered by those attempting to improve recruitment for neonatal research.

Parental perceptions of informed consent in a study of tracheal intubations in neonatal intensive care

Background and objective

Obtaining informed consent in neonatal emergency research is challenging. The aim of this study was to assess parental perceptions of informed consent following participation in a clinical trial in neonatal emergency care.

Methods

This was a supplementary analysis of a randomised controlled trial comparing video and direct laryngoscopy for neonatal endotracheal intubation in the delivery room and neonatal intensive care unit. After obtaining informed consent for the clinical trial, parents were asked to answer a series of self-administered questions about their perceptions of clinical trial participation and the consent process. Informed consent had been given either before birth, after birth but before inclusion in the trial, or after inclusion in the trial.

Results

We received responses from 33 mothers and 27 fathers (n = 60) of the 63 preterm and term infants who participated in the study. Fifty-three (89.8%, n = 59) parents agreed that infants should participate in clinical trials, and 51 (85%, n = 60) parents agreed that parents should be asked for informed consent. Fifty-three (89.8%, n = 59) parents felt that their infant's participation in this particular trial would be beneficial. Fifty-two (86.7%, n = 60) parents felt that the informed consent process was satisfactory. One parent (100%, n = 1) approached before birth, 23 parents (82.1%, n = 28) approached after birth but before enrolment and 26 (83.9%, n = 31) parents approached after enrolment were satisfied with the timing of the consent process. Eight (13.3%, n = 60) parents felt some pressure to provide informed consent. Of these, two (25%) were approached before enrolment and six (75%) were approached after enrolment.

Conclusion

Parents valued their infant's participation in an emergency neonatal clinical trial and considered it important to be asked for consent. In this study, it seemed less important whether consent was obtained before or after the intervention. Future studies may need to investigate which form of consent is most acceptable to parents for the individual study in question.

Parental Views of Facilitators and Barriers to Research Participation: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Low enrollment within pediatric research increases the cost of research, decreases generalizability, and threatens to exacerbate existing health disparities. To assess barriers and facilitators to pediatric research participation and evaluate differences by enrollment status.

METHODS

Data Sources include PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. Study selection include peer reviewed articles that contained information related to facilitators and barriers to the parental decision whether to enroll their child in research and included the views of parents who declined. We extracted barriers and facilitators to research, enrollment status, and study characteristics, including study design, quality, and patient population.

RESULTS

Seventy articles were included for analysis. Facilitators of participation included: benefits, trust, support of research, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common facilitators within those categories included health benefit to child (N = 39), altruism (N = 30), and the importance of research (N = 26). Barriers to participation included: study-related concerns, burdens of participation, lack of trust, general research concerns, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common barriers within those categories included risks to child (N = 46), burdens of participation (N = 35), and the stress of the decision (N = 29). We had a limited ability to directly compare by enrollment status and no ability to analyze interactions between facilitators and barriers. We only included studies written in English.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified key facilitators and barriers to research participation in pediatrics. The findings from this review may guide researchers aiming to create interventions to improve the parental experience of recruitment for pediatric studies and to optimize enrollment rates.

Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To describe the parental experience of recruitment and assess differences between parents who participated and those who declined to enroll in a neonatal clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a survey conducted at 12 US neonatal intensive care units of parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and encephaLopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Questions assessed 6 factors of the parental experience of recruitment: (1) interactions with research staff; (2) the consent experience; (3) perceptions of the study; (4) decisional conflict; (5) reasons for/against participation; and (6) timing of making the enrollment decision.

RESULTS

In total, 269 of 387 eligible parents, including 183 of 242 (75.6%) of those who enrolled their children in HEAL and 86 of 145 (59.3%) parents who declined to enroll their children in HEAL, were included in analysis. Parents who declined to enroll more preferred to be approached by clinical team members rather than by research team members (72.9% vs 49.2%, P = .005). Enrolled parents more frequently reported positive initial impressions (54.9% vs 10.5%, P < .001). Many parents in both groups made their decision early in the recruitment process. Considerations of reasons for/against participation differed by enrollment status.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding how parents experience recruitment, and how this differs by enrollment status, may help researchers improve recruitment processes for families and increase enrollment. The parental experience of recruitment varied by enrollment status. These findings can guide future work aiming to inform optimal recruitment strategies for neonatal clinical trials.

Parental Factors Associated With the Decision to Participate in a Neonatal Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

It remains poorly understood how parents decide whether to enroll a child in a neonatal clinical trial. This is particularly true for parents from racial or ethnic minority populations. Understanding factors associated with enrollment decisions may improve recruitment processes for families, increase enrollment rates, and decrease disparities in research participation.

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in parental factors between parents who enrolled their infant and those who declined enrollment for a neonatal randomized clinical trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study conducted from July 2017 to October 2019 in 12 US level 3 and 4 neonatal intensive care units included parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and Encephalopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Data were analyzed October 2019 through July 2020.

EXPOSURE

Parental choice of enrollment in neonatal clinical trial.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Percentages and odds ratios (ORs) of parent participation as categorized by demographic characteristics, self-assessment of child's medical condition, study comprehension, and trust in medical researchers. Survey questions were based on the hypothesis that parents who enrolled their infant in HEAL differ from those who declined enrollment across 4 categories: (1) infant characteristics and parental demographic characteristics, (2) perception of infant's illness, (3) study comprehension, and (4) trust in clinicians and researchers.

RESULTS

Of a total 387 eligible parents, 269 (69.5%) completed the survey and were included in analysis. This included 183 of 242 (75.6%) of HEAL-enrolled and 86 of 145 (59.3%) of HEAL-declined parents. Parents who enrolled their infant had lower rates of Medicaid participation (74 [41.1%] vs 47 [55.3%]; P = .04) and higher rates of annual income greater than $55 000 (94 [52.8%] vs 30 [37.5%]; P = .03) compared with those who declined. Black parents had lower enrollment rates compared with White parents (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.73). Parents who reported their infant's medical condition as more serious had higher enrollment rates (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.0-16.3). Parents who enrolled their infant reported higher trust in medical researchers compared with parents who declined (mean [SD] difference, 5.3 [0.3-10.3]). There was no association between study comprehension and enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, the following factors were associated with neonatal clinical trial enrollment: demographic characteristics (ie, race/ethnicity, Medicaid status, and reported income), perception of illness, and trust in medical researchers. Future work to confirm these findings and explore the reasons behind them may lead to strategies for better engaging underrepresented groups in neonatal clinical research to reduce enrollment disparities.