Neonatal research and the validity of informed consent obtained in the perinatal period

Parental views on prospective consent: Experience from a pilot randomised trial recruiting extremely preterm infants during the perinatal period

AIM

To explore parental perceptions of the consenting process and understanding of the study in a pilot randomised controlled trial wherein extremely premature infants (<29 weeks' gestation) were recruited either antenatally or by 4 h of life.

METHODS

We prospectively surveyed parents who had consented, declined consent or were eligible infants in the Positioning Preterm Infants for Neuroprotection study, a low-risk intervention study in the first 72 h of life. Structured interview questions explored the process and acceptability of the consenting approach by the parents and their knowledge of the study. Additional comments made by the parents were transcribed verbatim.

RESULTS

Sixty-two parents participated in the surveys; of those, 41 had provided their consent, 8 declined consent and 13 were parents of missed eligible infants. Overall, most parents reported they understood the study well before providing their consent and approaching them for consenting did not create a burden for them. A verbal explanation of the study by the study team, especially by the medical practitioners, was viewed as beneficial. Where consent was obtained in the birthing unit (imminent births and within 4 h of birthing), it was suggested that the 4-h period for obtaining post-natal consent may be too short. A deferred consent with a follow-up opportunity for obtaining informed consent could be a suitable alternative.

CONCLUSION

Parents found the consenting process acceptable and indicated they had sufficient understanding of the study to provide an informed consent. Deferred consent should be explored for future, low-risk intervention studies as an alternative to prospective consent where extremely preterm infants need to be recruited in the immediate neonatal period.

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Obtaining written informed consent from participants before enrolment in a study is essential. A previous study showed that only 50% of the participants in clinical trials understood the components of informed consent, and the methods of participants' understanding of informed consent were controversial. This updated meta-analysis aimed to estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand the different informed consent components. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched till April 2023. Therapeutic misconception, ability to name one risk, knowing that treatments were being compared, and understanding the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, the risks and side-effects, the direct benefits, placebo, randomization, voluntariness, freedom to withdraw, the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn from the trial, confidentiality, compensation, or comprehension were evaluated. This meta-analysis included 117 studies (155 datasets; 22,118 participants). The understanding of the risks and side-effects was investigated in the largest number of studies (n = 100), whereas comparehension was investigated in the smallest number (n = 11). The highest proportions were 97.5%(95% confidence interval (CI): 97.1-97.9) for confidentiality, 95.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.4-96.4) for compensation, 91.4% (95% CI: 90.7-92.1) for the nature of study, 68.1% (95% CI: 51.6-84.6) for knowing that treatments were being compared, and 67.3% (95% CI: 56.6-78) for voluntary nature of participants. The smallest proportions were the concept of placebo (4.8%, 95%CI: 4.4-5.2) and randomization(39.4%, 95%CI: 38.3-40.4). Our findings suggested that most participants understood the fundamental components of informed consent (study confidentiality, nature, compensation, voluntariness, and freedom to withdraw). The understanding of other components, such as placebo and randomization was less satisfactory.

Storing paediatric genomic data for sequential interrogation across the lifespan

Genomic sequencing (GS) is increasingly used in paediatric medicine to aid in screening, research and treatment. Some health systems are trialling GS as a first-line test in newborn screening programmes. Questions about what to do with genomic data after it has been generated are becoming more pertinent. While other research has outlined the ethical reasons for storing deidentified genomic data to be used in research, the ethical case for storing data for future clinical use has not been explicated. In this paper, we examine the ethical case for storing genomic data with the intention of using it as a lifetime health resource. In this model, genomic data would be stored with the intention of reanalysis at certain points through one's life. We argue this could benefit individuals and create an important public resource. However, several ethical challenges must first be met to achieve these benefits. We explore issues related to privacy, consent, justice and equality. We conclude by arguing that health systems should be moving towards futures that allow for the sequential interrogation of genomic data throughout the lifespan.

Maternal Perceptions of Safeguards for Research Involving Children

The vitality of clinical research and the health of the public relies on continued efforts to engage children in clinical research in a fully protected and ethically robust manner. Parents serve as proxy decision-makers assessing the risks and benefits of any given study in order to do what is in the best interest of their child. This study investigated maternal perceptions of research safeguards and mothers' willingness to enroll their children in clinical research studies. We hypothesized that mothers' perceptions of the protectiveness of safeguard procedures utilized in clinical research would be associated with mothers' willingness to enroll their children in research studies with such safeguards. Through a survey conducted via Amazon Mechanical Turk, mothers were asked to rate the perceived protectiveness of four safeguard procedures (confidential data coding, data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs), institutional review boards (IRBs), and informed consent) and the degree to which they were willing to have their child participate in research studies in the presence of each of the four safeguard procedures. Respondents generally perceived safeguard procedures to be protective. Mothers' trust in researchers' honesty positively impacted perceptions of the protectiveness of research safeguard procedures and willingness to enroll children in research. Mothers of only healthy children perceived research safeguards to be more protective than mothers with at least one child with at least one health issue. This study provides insight into whether maternal perceptions of the protectiveness of different safeguard procedures are associated with mothers' willingness to enroll their children in research.

Consent for Delivery Room Studies: What Can Be Learned from Perceptions of Parents

BACKGROUND

Obtaining ethically valid consent to participate in delivery room (DR) studies from parents facing an imminent premature birth can be challenging. This study aims to provide insight into parental experiences with and perceptions of consent for DR studies.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with parents of very and extreme preterm infants. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the qualitative data analysis software Atlas. ti V.8.4.

RESULTS

Twenty-five parents were interviewed. Despite being in an emotional and stressful situation, most parents considered being approached for DR studies as valuable. According to parents, this was mostly due to appropriate timing and communication, compassion, and investigators not being obtrusive. Interviewed parents generally decided to accept or decline study participation based on perceived risk. Parents differed widely in how risk of specific study interventions was perceived, but agreed on the fact that parental consent is needed for DR studies that involve risk. There was no consensus among parents on deferred consent for DR studies running at our NICU. However, parents considered deferred consent appropriate for observational studies. Furthermore, it became clear that parental misunderstanding of various aspects of DR studies, including aims, the concept of randomization, and risk associated with specific interventions, was common.

CONCLUSIONS

Insight into parental perceptions of consent for DR studies allowed us to determine areas where the validity of parental consent can be improved. Further research on parental perspectives for consent for DR studies will allow us to establish consent procedures that are considered both valid and valuable.

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.

Trust and consent: a prospective study on parents' perspective during a neonatal trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe how parents and physicians experienced the informed consent interview and to investigate the aspects of the relationship that influenced parents' decision during the consent process for a randomised clinical trial in a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The secondary objective was to describe the perspectives of parents and physicians in the specific situation of prenatal informed consent.

SETTING

Single centre study in NICU of the Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, France, using a convenience period from February to May 2016.

DESIGN

Ancillary study to a randomised clinical trial: Prettineo. Records of interviews for consent.

POPULATION

parents and physicians. Mixed study including qualitative and quantitative interview data about participants' recall and feelings about the consent process. Interviews were reviewed using thematic discourse analysis.

RESULTS

Parents' recall and understanding of the study's main goal and design was good. Parents and physicians had a positive experience, and trust was one of the main reasons for parents to consent. Misunderstanding (bad comprehension) was the main reason for refusal.Before birth, three situations can compromise parents' consent: the mother already consented to participate in other studies, the absence of the father during the interview and the feeling that the baby's birth is not an imminent possibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Confronting parents and physicians' perspectives in research can help us reach answers to sensitive issues such as content and timing of information. Each different types of study raises different ethical dilemmas for consent that might be discussed in a more individual way.

Challenges of a simplified opt-out consent process in a neonatal randomised controlled trial: qualitative study of parents' and health professionals' views and experiences

BACKGROUND

More effective recruitment strategies like alternative approaches to consent are needed to facilitate adequately powered trials. Witholding Enteral feeds Around Transfusion was a multicentre, randomised, pilot trial that compared withholding and continuing feeds around transfusion. The primary clinical outcome was necrotising enterocolitis. The trial used simplified opt-out consent with concise parent information and no consent form.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the views and experiences of parents and health professionals on the acceptability and feasibility of opt-out consent in randomised comparative effectiveness trials.

METHODS

A qualitative, descriptive interview-based study nested within a randomised trial. Semistructured interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

SETTING

Eleven neonatal units in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Eleven parents and ten health professionals with experience of simplified consent.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged: 'opt-out consent operationalised as verbal opt-in consent', 'opt-out consent normalises participation while preserving parental choice', 'opt-out consent as an ongoing process of informed choice', 'consent without a consent form' and 'choosing to opt out of a comparative effectiveness trial', with two subthemes: 'wanting "normal care"' and 'a belief that feeding is better'.

CONCLUSION

Introducing a novel form of consent proved challenging in practice. The principle of a simplified, opt-out approach to consent was generally considered feasible and acceptable by health professionals for a neonatal comparative effectiveness trial. The priority for parents was having the right to decide about trial participation, and they did not see opt-out consent as undermining this. Describing a study as 'opt-out' can help to normalise participation and emphasise that parents can withdraw consent.

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.

Parental perspectives long term after neonatal clinical trial participation: a survey

Background

Although recruiting newborns is ethically challenging, clinical trials remain essential to improve neonatal care. There is a lack of empirical data on the parental perspectives following participation of their neonate in a clinical trial, especially at long term. The objective of this study is to assess experiences and emotions of parents, long term after trial participation in an interventional drug trial.

Methods

Parents of former participants of five neonatal interventional drug trials were surveyed at long term (3–13 years ago) after participation. The survey assessed parental contentment with trial participation, perceived influence of the trial on care and health, emotional consequences of participation, and awareness of typical clinical trial characteristics on 6-point Likert scales.

Results

Complete responses were received from 123 parents (52% of involved families). Twenty percent of parents did not remember participation. Those who remembered participation reported high contentment with overall trial participation (median 5.00), but not with follow-up (median 3.00). Most parents did not perceive any influence of the trial on care (median 2.00) and health (median 2.43). Almost all parents reported satisfaction and pride (median 4.40), while a minority of parents reported anxiety and stress (median 1.44) or guilt (median 1.33) related to trial participation. A relevant minority was unaware of typical trial characteristics (median 4.20; 27% being unaware).

Conclusions

Overall, parents reported positive experiences and little emotional distress long term after participation. Future efforts to improve the practice of neonatal clinical trials should focus on ensuring effective communication about the concept and characteristics of a clinical trial during consent discussions and on the follow-up after the trial.

Parental Understanding of Research Consent Forms in the PICU: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

To describe legal guardians' understanding of key concepts in a research consent form presented within 24 hours of their child's admission to the PICU and to explore legal guardians' opinions of the format (language, length) of the consent form and the overall consent process.

DESIGN

Single-center, exploratory pilot study.

SETTING

PICU at a tertiary-care hospital in Canada.

SUBJECTS

Forty-one English- and French-speaking legal guardians of children less than 18 years old, who had been admitted to the PICU within the past 24 hours and were expected to stay at least 48 hours, between October 2018 and February 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

The consent form from a previous PICU trial was given and explained to legal guardians within 24 hours of their child's admission to the PICU.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Legal guardians' understanding of key concepts in the consent form was evaluated using a questionnaire the day after the form was explained, and opinions were collected verbally and using an additional survey. The median number of questions answered incorrectly was three of seven (interquartile range = 2-4). Participants best understood the topic of the study (5% incorrect), but 80% of participants were unable to recall a single risk. The median rating of the language in the form was five of five (very easy to understand; interquartile range = 4-5), and 88% of participants said it was a reasonable length.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite positive opinions of the consent form, most legal guardians did not understand all key components of the consent information provided to them orally and in writing within 24 hours of their child's PICU admission. Future studies are required to determine barriers to understanding and explore alternative approaches to obtaining consent in this setting.

Bioethical reflexivity and requirements of valid consent: conceptual tools

Background

Despite existing international, regional and national guidance on how to obtain valid consent to health-related research, valid consent remains both a practical and normative challenge. This challenge persists despite additional evidence-based guidance obtained through conceptual and empirical research in specific localities on the same subject. The purpose of this paper is to provide an account for why, despite this guidance, this challenge still persist and suggest conceptual resources that can help make sense of this problem and eventually mitigate it’.

Main body

This paper argues that despite the existence of detailed official guidance and prior conceptual and empirical research on how to obtain valid consent, the question of ‘how to obtain and ascertain valid consent to participation in health-related research’ cannot always be fully answered by exclusive reference to pre-determined criteria/guidance provided by the guidelines and prior research’. To make intelligible why this is so and how this challenge could be allayed, the paper proposes six concepts. The first five of these are intended to account for the persistent seeming inadequacies of existing guidelines. These are fact-skepticism; guideline insufficiency; generality; context-neutrality and presumptiveness. As an outcome of these five, the paper analyzes and recommends a sixth, called bioethical reflexivity. Bioethical reflexivity is reckoned as a handy tool, skill, and attitude by which, in addition to guidance from context-specific research, the persisting challenges can be further eased.

Conclusions

Existing ethical guidelines on how to obtain valid consent to health-related research are what they ought to be – general, presumptive and context-neutral. This explains their seeming inadequacies whenever they are being applied in concrete situations. Hence, the challenges being encountered while obtaining valid consent can be significantly eased if we appreciate the guidelines’ nature and what this means for their implementation. There is also a need to cultivate reflexive mindsets plus the relevant skills needed to judiciously close the unavoidable gaps between guidelines and their application in concrete cases. This equally applies to the gaps which cannot be filled by reference to additional guidance from prior conceptual and empirical research in specific contexts.

Waived Consent in Perinatal/Neonatal Research-When Is It Appropriate?

Informed consent is a process ensuring that subjects enrolled in research are appropriately informed of the risks and benefits. While this process is well-defined when it is possible and practical to obtain consent prior to the research intervention, it can be less clear in cases of deferred or waived consent. Defining minimal risk, such as when research is attempting to determine which of two currently practiced interventions is safest and/or most effective, is critical to moving forward in establishing appropriate care in newborns. For perinatal/neonatal research the challenge lies between the ethical justification for approaching women in labor or under medication vs. the scientific integrity of excluding a number of subjects that may potentially benefit the most from an intervention. Researchers must work with their IRBs as well as families who have participated in trials to determine the most appropriate method for obtaining informed consent from expectant parents. Clinical researchers and IRBs ultimately need to find a middle ground for the appropriate use of deferred or waived consent.

Ethical Issues in Perinatal Clinical Research

BACKGROUND

Perinatal clinical research to improve the quality of care and outcomes for newborn infants relies on transparency, trust, and respect for the autonomy and well-being of study participants and their families.

METHODS

Here we consider the underpinning principles of ethical research with a focus on perinatal clinical research in the acute care or emergency setting where particular challenges to parental engagement and informed consent exist.

RESULTS

Several approaches to improving the validity of the consent process for perinatal research have been proposed and evaluated. These include consent waiver, antenatal consent, deferred consent preceded by verbal assent, and continuous consent. These have strengths and weaknesses and uncertainty remains about their validity and acceptability in certain research contexts. Prior exploration with parents and parent-advocacy groups of approaches to engagement and consent, and independent evaluation and ongoing monitoring of research studies, can enhance adherence to the ethical principles of justice and autonomy, and ensure that benefits to participants and their families exceed harm.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality research and ethics are interdependent. Only research that meets ethical standards can be regarded as valid and applicable, and only research designs that are methodologically rigorous and appropriate can be regarded as ethical.

Improved pregnant women's understanding of research information by an enhanced informed consent form: a randomised controlled study nested in neonatal research

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to test the applicability and effectiveness of the enhanced informed consent form (ICF) methodology, proposed by the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER), in neonatal research requiring maternal consent.

DESIGN

A single-centre open-label randomised controlled study.

SETTING

Antenatal care clinics at Phramongkutklao Hospital, Thailand.

PATIENTS

234 pregnant women who were at risk of preterm labour were enrolled; 232 individuals completed the study.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants were randomly assigned to read either the SIDCER ICF or the conventional ICF.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The participants' understanding of essential trial-related information was assessed using 25 closed-ended questions. The primary endpoint was the proportion of the participants who obtained the satisfactory level of understanding at 80% (score of ≥20/25).

RESULTS

72.5% (87/120) of the participants in the SIDCER ICF group and 59.8% (67/112) of the conventional ICF group achieved the primary endpoint (relative risk (RR)=1.212, 95% CI 1.005 to 1.462, p=0.041). The superiority of the SIDCER ICF over the conventional ICF was significant, particularly among the participants whose education was at the high school level or below (63.5% vs 44.1%, RR=1.441, 95% CI 1.022 to 2.030, p=0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The SIDCER ICF methodology is applicable to neonatal research requiring maternal consent. The SIDCER ICF significantly improved the understanding of pregnant women, particularly among those with lower levels of education. The present study confirms the value of the SIDCER ICF methodology in research involving individuals with a limited academic background.

Informed consent for a neonatal clinical trial: parental experiences and perspectives

OBJECTIVE

There is a variability regarding timing of consent and personnel used in patient recruitment for neonatal research. We explored the associations between the study personnel and timing of consent with parents' decisional conflict and ultimately their decision to enroll.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a multi-site, cross-sectional survey conducted between August 2015 and October 2017. Participants were parents approached to enroll their 24-28-week infant in a clinical trial. Parents completed an interviewer-administered 61-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

Overall, 163 surveys were completed; 105 by parents of enrolled infants and 58 by parents of non-enrolled infants (54.5% participation rate). Neither the individual requesting nor timing of consent was associated with parents' knowledge score, decisional conflict, or decision to enroll. Parents preferred to be approached prenatally and by their infant's doctor.

CONCLUSION

Study designers and IRBs may allow flexibility in personnel and timing of consent as it is respectful of parents and may enhance trial enrollment.

Clinical trials in neonates: How to optimise informed consent and decision making? A European Delphi survey of parent representatives and clinicians

Objectives

Parental consent for the participation of their neonate in neonatal research is influenced by the quality of the information delivered and the interaction between parents and investigators. Failure to provide important information may lead to difficulties in the decision making process of parents. This Delphi survey aims to establish a consensus between parent representatives of neonatal associations and healthcare professionals concerning the information deemed essential by both parties in order to improve the recruitment of neonates into clinical trials.

Method

This study was conducted in Europe among parent representatives and healthcare professionals. In this 3-phase study, 96 items were defined by the Scientific Committee (CS), composed of 11 clinicians (from 8 countries) and 1 parent representative of the European network of neonatal associations. Then the Committee of Experts (CE) composed of 16 clinicians were matched by country with 16 national parent representatives and evaluated these items in two rounds. The importance of each item was evaluated by each member of the CE on a scale between 1 and 9 based on their personal experience.

Results

Fifty eight items reached the second and final level of consensus. In contrast to clinicians, parent representatives preferred to be informed about the study by the physician in charge of their child. They also favoured additional support during the informed consent process and stated that both parents need to agree and sign.

Conclusion

The set of 58 items on which parents and clinicians reached consensus will be helpful to healthcare professionals seeking parental consent for the inclusion of a neonate in a clinical trial. Providing parents with information about the trial by the investigator in the presence of the patient’s neonatologist, developing closer contacts with parents and informing them of the available support by parents associations may be helpful for parents.

Comparison of Consent Models in a Randomized Trial of Corticosteroids in Pediatric Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

To describe the use of deferred and prior informed consent models in the context of a low additional risk to standard of care, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial of corticosteroids in pediatric septic shock.

DESIGN

An observational substudy of consent processes in a randomized controlled trial of hydrocortisone versus placebo.

SETTING

Seven tertiary level PICUs in Canada.

PATIENTS

Children newborn to 17 years inclusive admitted to PICU with suspected septic shock between July 2014 and March 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Information on the number of families approached, consent rates obtained, and spontaneously volunteered reasons for nonparticipation were collected for both deferred and informed consent. The research ethics board of five of seven centers approved a deferred consent model; however, implementation criteria for use of this model varied across sites. The consent rate using deferred versus prior informed consent was significantly higher (83%; 35/42 vs 58%; 15/26; p = 0.02). The mean times from meeting inclusion criteria to randomization (1.8 ± 1.8 vs 3.6 ± 2.1 hr; p = 0.007) and study drug administration (3.4 ± 2.7 hr vs 4.8 ± 2.1 hr; p = 0.05) were significantly shorter with the use of deferred consent versus prior informed consent. No family member or research ethics board expressed concern following use of deferred consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Deferred consent was acceptable in time-sensitive critical care research to most research ethics boards, families, and healthcare providers and resulted in higher consent rates and more efficient recruitment. Larger studies on deferred consent and consistency interpreting jurisdictional guidelines are needed to advance pediatric acute care.

'We knew it was a totally at random thing': parents' experiences of being part of a neonatal trial

BACKGROUND

Studies exploring parents' trial experiences generally relate to their understanding of the consent process and the development of researcher strategies to facilitate recruitment and retention. The aim was to better understand parents' experience of being part of a trial at the time and their perceptions of trial participation in retrospect.

METHODS

Data were collected in a number of ways: from recorded discussions between parents and clinicians about the MRI or ultrasound, in open-text responses to questionnaires and in qualitative interviews at 1 and 2 years after participation. Thematic analysis was undertaken using NVivo10.

RESULTS

Key themes identified were 'deciding to take part', with subthemes associated with 'benefitting self', 'benefitting others' and 'being prepared'; 'the randomisation process' with subthemes relating to 'acceptance' and 'understanding' and 'actual engagement' with subthemes of 'practicalities' and 'care from responsive staff'.

CONCLUSION

Parents' perspectives on the trial and the processes and information received reflect their understanding and experience of the trial and the value of parent-friendly information-giving about participation, randomisation and follow-up. The practical and logistical points raised confirm the key issues and parents' need for sensitive care and support in the course of a trial. Looking back, almost all parents were positive about their experience and felt that the family had benefitted from participation in the trial and follow-up studies, even when the developmental outcomes were poor.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01049594. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01049594 . Registered on 13 January 2010. EudraCT: EudraCT: 2009-011602-42. https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ .

Permission form synopses to improve parents' understanding of research: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that, among parents of potential neonatal research subjects, an accompanying cover sheet added to the permission form (intervention) would increase understanding of the research, when compared to a standard form (control).

STUDY DESIGN

This pilot study enrolled parents approached for one of two index studies: one randomized trial and one observational study. A one-page cover sheet described critical study information. Families were randomized 1:1 to receive the cover sheet or not. Objective and subjective understanding and satisfaction were measured.

RESULTS

Thirty-two parents completed all measures (17 control, 15 intervention). There were no differences in comprehension score (16.8±5.7 vs 16.3±3.5), subjective understanding (median 6 vs 6.5), or overall satisfaction with consent (median 7 vs 6.5) between control and intervention groups (all P>0.50).

CONCLUSION

A simplified permission form cover sheet had no effect on parents' understanding of studies for which their newborns were being recruited.

Parental and staff perspectives of NICU research procedures

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on parental perception of infant participation in minimal risk and minor increase above minimal risk research focusing on the NICU population. The study objective was to assess parental and NICU staff perceptions concerning minimal risk and minor increase above minimal risk in the NICU setting.

METHODS

Parents of infants and NICU staff were presented with a combination of 4 infant scenarios and 5 hypothetical research procedures. These assessed participants' willingness to allow their infant to participate in research and their attitude towards obligation to assist future children. Linear and hierarchal linear models analyzed the association and interaction effects on the likelihood to consent to research procedures.

RESULTS

Sixty parents and 30 NICU staff members were surveyed. Parents' acceptability for each of the five research procedures ranged from 31 % to 83 %. Parent gender, age, race/ethnicity, insurance, education and history of previous child in the NICU were not associated with the likelihood to consent to the research procedures. Acceptability for each of the five research procedures among NICU staff ranged from 19 % to 98 %. There were no significant differences between NICU staff's and parents' responses for 4 of 5 research procedures. A minority of parents and nurses (38.3 % and 40 % respectively), compared to a majority of physicians (66.7 %), agreed or strongly agreed that parents have a responsibility to involve their children in low risk medical research in order to help future children, even if this would not help their own child. Lower agreement with obligation to help future children (p < 0.01) and higher education (p = 0.01) were associated with a decreased likelihood to consent to research procedures.

CONCLUSION

In our study population, common NICU-related research procedures were considered appropriate and acceptable to a diverse group of NICU parents representing a wide range of race/ethnic and socioeconomic strata. Current regulations guiding informed consent for minimal and minor increase over minimal risk research in the NICU environment appear ethically consistent with a diverse group of parents and providers.

Reading Level and Comprehension of Research Consent Forms

Consent forms continue to be at a higher reading level than the recommended sixth to eighth grade, making it difficult for participants to comprehend information before enrolling in research. To assess and address the extent of the problem regarding the level of literacy of consent forms and update previously published reports, we conducted an integrative literature review of English language research published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013; 35 descriptive and eight intervention studies met inclusion criteria. Results confirmed that developing forms at eighth-grade level was attainable though not practiced. It was found that risks of participation was the section most poorly understood. There was also a lack of consensus regarding the most effective method to increase comprehension. Further research using standardized tools is needed to determine the best approach for improving consent forms and processes.

The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the empirical research

BACKGROUND

Conducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet approaching parents at this difficult time raises challenges for the obtaining of valid informed consent to such research. This study asked: what light does the empirical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to the obtaining of informed consent in perinatal clinical trials?

METHODS

A systematic search identified 49 studies. Analysis began by applying philosophical frameworks which were then refined in light of the concepts emerging from empirical studies to present a coherent picture of a broad literature.

RESULTS

Between them, studies addressed the attitudes of both parents and clinicians concerning consent in neonatal trials; the validity of the consent process in the neonatal research context; and different possible methods of obtaining consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a variety of opinions among parents and clinicians there is a strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give or decline consent for neonatal participation in trials. However, none of the range of existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory. A significant gap is evaluation of the widespread practice of emergency 'assent', in which parents assent or refuse their baby's participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to ongoing participation and follow-up. Emergency assent has not been evaluated for its acceptability, how such a process would deal with bad outcomes such as neonatal death between assent and consent, or the extent to which late parental refusal might bias results. This review of a large number of empirical papers, while not making fundamental changes, has refined and developed the conceptual framework from philosophy for examining informed consent in this context.

Parents' and young people's involvement in designing a trial of ventilator weaning

Consulting with users is considered best practice and is highly recommended in designing new trials. As part of our feasibility work, we undertook a consultation exercise with parents, ex-patients and young people prior to designing a trial of protocol-based ventilator weaning. Our aims were to (1) ascertain views on the relevance and importance of the trial; (2) determine the important parent/patient outcome measures; and (3) ascertain views on informed consent in a cluster randomized controlled trial. We conducted audio-recorded face-to-face, telephone and focus group interviews with parents and young people. Data were content analysed to generate information to address our specific consultation objectives. The setting was the north-western region of England. A total of 16 participants were interviewed: 2 parents of paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) survivors; 1 PICU survivor; and 13 young people from the former Medicines for Children Research Network. The trial objectives were deemed important and relevant, and participants considered the most important outcome measure to be the length of time on ventilation. Parents and young people did not consider written informed consent to be a necessary requirement in the context of this trial, rather awareness of unit participation in the trial was important with the opportunity of opting out of data collection. This consultation provided useful, pragmatic insights to inform trial design. We encountered significant challenges in recruiting parents and young people for this consultation exercise, and novel recruitment methods need to be considered for future work in this field. Patient and public involvement is essential to ensure that future trials answer parent-relevant questions and have meaningful outcome measures, as well as involving parents and young people in the general development of health care services.

Parents report positive experiences about enrolling babies in a cord-related clinical trial before birth

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate parents' perceptions when they were asked to enrol their unborn preterm infant in a randomised trial involving delayed cord clamping or cord milking.

METHODS

The parents of 58 infants were asked to take part in a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to provide feedback about how they felt about their infants being included in the research project. A total of 37 parents - 15 fathers and 22 mothers - agreed to take part.

RESULTS

Parents were generally positive about their experiences of their baby taking part in the trial, but the findings raised some concerns about the validity of the consent obtained before delivery, as it was given in a hurry, and some participants had difficulty remembering that they had agreed to take part. Four themes were identified from the interviews: implications of taking part, reasons for enrolling infants, experiences of recruitment and suggestions for improvement.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the parents were positive about their baby taking part in the trial, but the consent process could be improved, by providing information about relevant trials earlier in the pregnancy or implementing continuous consent at key points in the trial.

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence in Treating Neonatal Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury

The successful clinical translation of therapeutic hypothermia offers the tantalizing possibility that further improvements in outcomes may be possible by combining cooling with other neuroprotective drugs. The challenge now is to select from a daunting range of potential treatments. The patient's best interest must be central to ethical decision making at all times. However, the beneficence or nonmaleficence of potential therapies is seldom clear for any individual patient at the time of testing new therapies. Clinical randomized controlled trials are generally acknowledged by the scientific community as the 'gold standard' for evaluating interventions in health care. Therefore, ethical trial design is of the utmost importance. This paper explores contrasting ethical perspectives on how to select new interventions to treat neonatal encephalopathy after perinatal hypoxia-ischemia.

Ethics of drug research in the pediatric intensive care unit

Critical illness and treatment modalities change pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medications used in critically ill children, in addition to age-related changes in drug disposition and effect. Hence, to ensure effective and safe drug therapy, research in this population is urgently needed. However, conducting research in the vulnerable population of the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) presents with ethical challenges. This article addresses the main ethical issues specific to drug research in these critically ill children and proposes several solutions. The extraordinary environment of the PICU raises specific challenges to the design and conduct of research. The need for proxy consent of parents (or legal guardians) and the stress-inducing physical environment may threaten informed consent. The informed consent process is challenging because emergency research reduces or even eliminates the time to seek consent. Moreover, parental anxiety may impede adequate understanding and generate misconceptions. Alternative forms of consent have been developed taking into account the unpredictable reality of the acute critical care environment. As with any research in children, the burden and risk should be minimized. Recent developments in sample collection and analysis as well as pharmacokinetic analysis should be considered in the design of studies. Despite the difficulties inherent to drug research in critically ill children, methods are available to conduct ethically sound research resulting in relevant and generalizable data. This should motivate the PICU community to commit to drug research to ultimately provide the right drug at the right dose for every individual child.

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand different components of informed consent.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar and by manually reviewing reference lists for publications up to October 2013. A meta-analysis of study results was performed using a random-effects model to take account of heterogeneity.

FINDINGS

The analysis included 103 studies evaluating 135 cohorts of participants. The pooled proportion of participants who understood components of informed consent was 75.8% for freedom to withdraw at any time, 74.7% for the nature of study, 74.7% for the voluntary nature of participation, 74.0% for potential benefits, 69.6% for the study's purpose, 67.0% for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% for confidentiality, 64.1% for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn, 62.9% for knowing that treatments were being compared, 53.3% for placebo and 52.1% for randomization. Most participants, 62.4%, had no therapeutic misconceptions and 54.9% could name at least one risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses identified covariates, such as age, educational level, critical illness, the study phase and location, that significantly affected understanding and indicated that the proportion of participants who understood informed consent had not increased over 30 years.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of participants in clinical trials who understood different components of informed consent varied from 52.1% to 75.8%. Investigators could do more to help participants achieve a complete understanding.

When is waiver of consent appropriate in a neonatal clinical trial?

It is difficult to do scientifically rigorous research on treatments that must be administered urgently or emergently. Therefore, such treatments are often provided without a strong evidence base. Research would be facilitated if it were permissible to waive the requirement for parental consent. However, that raises a different set of concerns. Federal regulations allow waiver of the requirement for consent but only if studies meet certain conditions. Institutional review boards must decide whether those conditions are met. Sometimes, reasonable people disagree. We present and analyze a protocol for which investigators request a waiver of consent.

Participants' understanding of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) through informed consent procedures in the RCT for breast cancer screening, J-START

Background

It is often difficult to enrol healthy volunteers into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) as there are barriers to participants’ proper understanding of a trial. This study aimed to evaluate degrees of understanding of the informed consent (IC) process among healthy volunteers who participated in an RCT. Additionally, factors associated with degree of understanding were investigated.

Methods

The J-START (the Japan STrategic Anti-cancer Randomized controlled Trial) is an RCT investigating the effectiveness of ultrasonography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years. To evaluate participants’ understanding of the J-START, we administered questionnaires to 376 Japanese women on the day of enrolment at five study sites across Japan. The respondents were asked to complete the anonymous questionnaire within 2 weeks. We assessed objective understanding and perceived subjective understanding of IC using a Japanese version of the Quality of Informed Consent scale (QuIC). Then we analyzed the characteristics of women whose understanding was poor, and clarified the association between providing information and their understanding of the study protocol.

Results

The average QuIC scores were 78.2 and 82.2 (out of 100 each) for objective and subjective understanding, respectively. These are generally acceptable scores for participants’ understanding of an RCT. However, there were four domains with low scores, indicating poor understanding: (1) experimental nature of the study, (2) potential risks or discomfort, (3) benefit to self, and (4) compensation.

Conclusions

Healthy volunteers generally well understood the J-START. Nevertheless, there were some domains in need of improvement. In order to facilitate participants’ understanding, it is necessary to provide training to reduce differences in information-providing procedures between medical centres and to endeavour to provide consistent information and conditions.

Trial registration

The J-START was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registration (UMIN-CTR), Japan (registration number: UMIN000000757), on July 1, 2007.

Representativeness of enrollment into a perinatal research repository

OBJECTIVE

To describe enrollment and compare demographic and clinical characteristics of neonates enrolled in the perinatal research repository (PRR) with eligible, but non-enrolled neonates.

METHODS

Characteristics from enrolled infants were compared with eligible, but non-enrolled infants using t-tests, Wilcoxon rank tests and χ(2) tests.

RESULTS

Between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011, 622 infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), born < 37 weeks were screened for the PRR were eligible for enrollment. Of these, 233 enrolled in the study. There were no significant differences between enrolled and non-enrolled infants with regard to race, birth weight, gestational age and Apgar scores. Enrolled patients had a significantly longer length of stay [mean (standard deviation) = 55.0 (58.9) versus 38.0 (45.8) days; p < 0.01]. Mortality was significantly greater in the non-enrolled group (11.7 versus 3.0%; p < 0.01). Both groups had a similar total number of diagnoses [mean (standard deviation) = 5.7 (3.1) versus 5.8 (3.2)]; however, among survivors enrolled infants had slightly lower prevalence of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (0.0 versus 2.9%; p < 0.01) and seizures (1.8 versus 6.4%; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in enrollment by prevalence of other morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that a specimen collecting repository can enroll a sufficiently representative sample of eligible patients.

Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is a critical component of clinical research. Different methods of presenting information to potential participants of clinical trials may improve the informed consent process. Audio-visual interventions (presented, for example, on the Internet or on DVD) are one such method. We updated a 2008 review of the effects of these interventions for informed consent for trial participation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audio-visual information interventions regarding informed consent compared with standard information or placebo audio-visual interventions regarding informed consent for potential clinical trial participants, in terms of their understanding, satisfaction, willingness to participate, and anxiety or other psychological distress.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, issue 6, 2012; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to 13 June 2012); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1947 to 12 June 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to June week 1 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to 27 June 2012); Current Contents (OvidSP) (1993 Week 27 to 2012 Week 26); and ERIC (Proquest) (searched 27 June 2012). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles, and contacted study authors and experts. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing audio-visual information alone, or in conjunction with standard forms of information provision (such as written or verbal information), with standard forms of information provision or placebo audio-visual information, in the informed consent process for clinical trials. Trials involved individuals or their guardians asked to consider participating in a real or hypothetical clinical study. (In the earlier version of this review we only included studies evaluating informed consent interventions for real studies).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We synthesised the findings using meta-analysis, where possible, and narrative synthesis of results. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered the impact of the quality of the overall evidence on the strength of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies involving data from 1884 participants. Nine studies included participants considering real clinical trials, and eight included participants considering hypothetical clinical trials, with one including both. All studies were conducted in high-income countries.There is still much uncertainty about the effect of audio-visual informed consent interventions on a range of patient outcomes. However, when considered across comparisons, we found low to very low quality evidence that such interventions may slightly improve knowledge or understanding of the parent trial, but may make little or no difference to rate of participation or willingness to participate. Audio-visual presentation of informed consent may improve participant satisfaction with the consent information provided. However its effect on satisfaction with other aspects of the process is not clear. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about anxiety arising from audio-visual informed consent. We found conflicting, very low quality evidence about whether audio-visual interventions took more or less time to administer. No study measured researcher satisfaction with the informed consent process, nor ease of use.The evidence from real clinical trials was rated as low quality for most outcomes, and for hypothetical studies, very low. We note, however, that this was in large part due to poor study reporting, the hypothetical nature of some studies and low participant numbers, rather than inconsistent results between studies or confirmed poor trial quality. We do not believe that any studies were funded by organisations with a vested interest in the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The value of audio-visual interventions as a tool for helping to enhance the informed consent process for people considering participating in clinical trials remains largely unclear, although trends are emerging with regard to improvements in knowledge and satisfaction. Many relevant outcomes have not been evaluated in randomised trials. Triallists should continue to explore innovative methods of providing information to potential trial participants during the informed consent process, mindful of the range of outcomes that the intervention should be designed to achieve, and balancing the resource implications of intervention development and delivery against the purported benefits of any intervention.More trials, adhering to CONSORT standards, and conducted in settings and populations underserved in this review, i.e. low- and middle-income countries and people with low literacy, would strengthen the results of this review and broaden its applicability. Assessing process measures, such as time taken to administer the intervention and researcher satisfaction, would inform the implementation of audio-visual consent materials.

Mothers of babies enrolled in a randomized trial immediately after birth report a positive experience

OBJECTIVE

Randomized trials are essential for improving outcomes, but researchers can be hesitant about undertaking clinical trials in newborn babies because of perceived vulnerability of the baby and risk of increasing parental anxiety. There is a paucity of evidence about the parental experience. We investigated mothers' experiences of having their newborn baby participate in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial soon after birth.

STUDY DESIGN

Eligible mothers had consented to their baby's participation in the Sugar Babies Study. Mothers of potentially eligible babies were invited to join the study antenatally, but others were approached postnatally. Babies were enrolled in the study soon after birth and remained in the study for 48 h. After 2 weeks the birth mothers were interviewed by phone about their experience.

RESULT

Four hundred and eighty-one mothers were enrolled, of whom 310 (64%) gave consent antenatally. All mothers were contacted and 477 (99%) were interviewed. The majority of mothers (458, 96%) reported they would consent to participating again, if they had another eligible baby, and 460 mothers (96%) reported they would recommend participation to family and friends. Nineteen mothers (4%) reported they did not like the heel lance blood tests, which were part of routine clinical care and not part of the trial protocol.

CONCLUSION

Most mothers reported the experience of having their newborn baby participate in a clinical trial as positive. Most negative responses were related to aspects of routine care rather than the trial protocol.

A study of consent for participation in a non-therapeutic study in the pediatric intensive care population

OBJECTIVE

To document the legal guardian-related barriers to consent procurement, and their stated reasons for non-participation in a paediatric critical care research study.

STUDY DESIGN

A multicentre, prospective, cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Legal guardians of children who participated in a multicentre study on adrenal insufficiency in paediatric critical illness. Data were collected on all consent encounters in the main study.

METHODS

Screening data, reasons for consent not being obtained, paediatric risk of mortality (illness severity) scores and age were collected on all 1707 patients eligible for participation in the Adrenal Insufficiency Study.

RESULTS

The main barriers to approaching legal guardians for consent were lack of availability of the legal guardians (321/1707) and language barriers (84/1707). Legal guardians of 917 patients were approached with an overall consent rate of 42% (range 14-56% across the seven sites). 81% of the 528 legal guardians who declined consent provided an unsolicited reason for refusal. The three most commonly stated reasons were: being overwhelmed (117/429), not wanting anything else done to their child (63/429) and not wanting an additional medication (53/429). In addition, 14.2% cited research-related concerns as the reason for their non-participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to consent procurement in a non-therapeutic paediatric critical care study appear to occur at many levels with lack of availability of legal guardians, and legal guardians feeling overwhelmed, being the most commonly recorded reasons. Further research into the impact of these findings on the validity and generalisability of the results of such studies is necessary prior to the development and study of future consent models.

Ethical aspects of clinical research with minors

Over the past decades, clinical research has increasingly been subjected to ethical requirements and legal regulation. The specific focus of ethical and legal frameworks on competent adults (which serve as the paradigmatic research subject), however, has created an ambivalent attitude towards pediatric clinical research. On one hand, minors are regarded as a vulnerable population that deserves additional protection against the risks and burdens involved in clinical research. On the other hand, the population of minors should not be denied (or not get timely) access to the benefits of clinical research. In this paper, we will explore the legal regulation and ethical guidance that currently governs pediatric clinical research in the European Union and discuss the future challenges in this field. In addition, we will discuss major ethical concerns in pediatric clinical research, with a focus on the acceptability of research risks and the informed consent process. In the discussion, we will address key concerns in both regulating pediatric clinical research and implementing ethical and legal requirement in the actual pediatric research conduct.

Education in health research methodology: use of a wiki for knowledge translation

Introduction

A research-practice gap exists between what is known about conducting methodologically rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and what is done. Evidence consistently shows that pediatric RCTs are susceptible to high risk of bias; therefore novel methods of influencing the design and conduct of trials are required. The objective of this study was to develop and pilot test a wiki designed to educate pediatric trialists and trainees in the principles involved in minimizing risk of bias in RCTs. The focus was on preliminary usability testing of the wiki.

Methods

The wiki was developed through adaptation of existing knowledge translation strategies and through tailoring the site to the identified needs of the end-users. The wiki was evaluated for usability and user preferences regarding the content and formatting. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 trialists and systematic reviewers, representing varying levels of experience with risk of bias or the conduct of trials. Data were analyzed using content analysis.

Results

Participants found the wiki to be well organized, easy to use, and straightforward to navigate. Suggestions for improvement tended to focus on clarification of the text or on esthetics, rather than on the content or format. Participants liked the additional features of the site that were supplementary to the text, such as the interactive examples, and the components that focused on practical applications, adding relevance to the theory presented. While the site could be used by both trialists and systematic reviewers, the lack of a clearly defined target audience caused some confusion among participants.

Conclusions

Participants were supportive of using a wiki as a novel educational tool. The results of this pilot test will be used to refine the risk of bias wiki, which holds promise as a knowledge translation intervention for education in medical research methodology.

Remote preenrollment checking of consent forms to reduce nonconformity

BACKGROUND

In biomedical research, the signed consent form must be checked for compliance with regulatory requirements. Checking usually is performed on site, most frequently after a participant's final enrollment.

PURPOSE

We piloted a procedure for remote preenrollment consent forms checking. We applied it in five trials and assessed its efficiency to reduce form nonconformity before participant enrollment.

METHODS

Our clinical trials unit (CTU) routinely uses a consent form with an additional copy that contains a pattern that partially masks the participant's name and signature. After completion and signatures by the participant and investigator, this masked copy is faxed to the CTU for checking. In case of detected nonconformity, the CTU suspends the participant's enrollment until the form is brought into compliance. We checked nonconformities of consent forms both remotely before enrollment and on site in five trials conducted in our CTU. We tabulated the number and nature of nonconformities by location of detection: at the CTU or on site. We used these data for a pseudo before-and-after analysis and estimated the efficiency of this remote checking procedure in terms of reduction of nonconformities before enrollment as compared to the standard on-site checking procedure. We searched for nonconformity determinants among characteristics of trials, consent forms, investigator sites, and participants through multivariate logistic regression so as to identify opportunities for improvement in our procedure.

RESULTS

Five trials, starting sequentially but running concurrently, with remote preenrollment and on-site checking of consent forms from 415 participants screened in 2006-2009 led to 518 consent forms checked; 94 nonconformities were detected in 75 forms, 75 (80%) remotely and 19 more (20%) on site. Nonconformities infrequently concerned dates of signatures (7%) and information about participants (12%). Most nonconformities dealt with investigator information (76%), primarily contact information (54%). The procedure reduced nonconformities by 81% (95% confidence interval (CI): 73%-89%) before enrollment. Nonconforming consent forms dropped from 25% to 0% over the period, indicating a rapid learning effect between trials. Fewer nonconformities were observed for participants screened later in a trial (odds ratio (95% CI): 0.5 (0.3-0.8); p = 0.004), indicating a learning effect within trials. Nonconformities were more common for participants enrolled after screening (2.4 (1.1-5.3); p = 0.03), indicating a stricter scrutiny by form checkers.

LIMITATIONS

Although our study had a pseudo before-and-after design, no major bias was identified. Power and generalizability of our findings were sufficient to support implementation in future trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This procedure substantially limited nonconformity of consent forms with regulatory requirements before enrollment, thus proving a key component of a risk-based monitoring strategy that has been recommended to optimize resources for clinical research.

Evaluation of the content and process of informed consent discussions for neonatal research

Studies of informed consent for neonatal research suggest that there are gaps in parental understanding of key aspects of research. Few studies have examined parental understanding and investigator disclosure simultaneously. This pilot study evaluated the content and processes of 21 audio-recorded consent discussions with parents of eligible newborns, as well as parents' self-reported comprehension of research elements following these discussions. Gaps in both investigator disclosure and parental understanding were found. Nevertheless, parents reported comprehension of a greater number of research elements than were actually disclosed by investigators. Our preliminary results indicate the feasibility and potential utility of jointly examining parental understanding and investigator behavior to characterize consent for neonatal research. Directions for future research are suggested.

Do health care institutions value research? A mixed methods study of barriers and facilitators to methodological rigor in pediatric randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are susceptible to a high risk of bias. We examined the barriers and facilitators that pediatric trialists face in the design and conduct of unbiased trials.

METHODS

We used a mixed methods design, with semi-structured interviews building upon the results of a quantitative survey. We surveyed Canadian (n=253) and international (n=600) pediatric trialists regarding their knowledge and awareness of bias and their perceived barriers and facilitators in conducting clinical trials. We then interviewed 13 participants from different subspecialties and geographic locations to gain a more detailed description of how their experiences and attitudes towards research interacted with trial design and conduct.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 23.0% (186/807). 68.1% of respondents agreed that bias is a problem in pediatric RCTs and 72.0% felt that there is sufficient evidence to support changing some aspects of how trials are conducted. Knowledge related to bias was variable, with inconsistent awareness of study design features that may introduce bias into a study. Interview participants highlighted a lack of formal training in research methods, a negative research culture, and the pragmatics of trial conduct as barriers. Facilitators included contact with knowledgeable and supportive colleagues and infrastructure for research.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of awareness of bias and negative attitudes towards research present significant barriers in terms of conducting methodologically rigorous pediatric RCTs. Knowledge translation efforts must focus on these issues to ensure the relevance and validity of trial results.

Consent to tissue banking for research: qualitative study and recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To explore how families of children with cancer experience giving consent for tissue banking and to produce recommendations on good practice.

DESIGN

79 participants from 42 families (41 mothers, 18 fathers, 20 children and young people with cancer) took part in semistructured interviews to explore their experiences of being approached for consent to tissue banking.

SETTING

Tertiary care facilities for childhood cancer.

RESULTS

Families are generally supportive of tissue banking, although they report that it may be difficult for them to consider all the implications when asked for consent. They typically do not want detailed information when consent is sought close to diagnosis, preferring to see tissue banking as part of routine practice. Families often recognise that their consent may not be fully informed, but are content to give consent based on their understanding at the time. Some may want a chance to go over the information and revisit their decision when things have settled.

CONCLUSIONS

Families' views can inform practical recommendations for optimising the experience of consent for tissue banking. Current guidelines for obtaining consent should be revisited to take account of families' preferences.

Parents' perceptions of their infants' participation in randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To explore parents' perceptions of their infants' participation in randomized control trials (RCTs) and the implications of the RCT for their infant and themselves.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semistructured interviews.

SETTING

Participants were identified from neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) clinical registers and from responses to an advertisement put on the website of United Kingdom special care baby charity, BLISS. Interviews were conducted with parents face-to-face in their homes or over the telephone.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen parents of 12 infants born prematurely or with complications at full term and who had participated in one of three RCTs while receiving intensive care in one of seven NICUs.

METHODS

Interviews were audio-taped or digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using systematic thematic analysis using WinMax qualitative software.

RESULTS

Five main themes emerged from the data. The themes were parents' immediate reactions to being approached about RCT enrollment, interactions between parents and clinicians upon the approach of enrollment and during the RCT, making the decision to enroll their infants, implications of the RCT for parents, and effects of the RCT on the infants.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should be encouraged to approach parents about enrollment of their infants in clinical research given that parents reported mostly positive experiences related to this participation. However, appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that the individual needs of parents are being met throughout the entire research process from enrollment to follow-up.

Communication about children's clinical trials as observed and experienced: qualitative study of parents and practitioners

BACKGROUND

Recruiting children to clinical trials is perceived to be challenging. To identify ways to optimise recruitment and its conduct, we compared how parents and practitioners described their experiences of recruitment to clinical trials.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This qualitative study ran alongside four children's clinical trials in 11 UK research sites. It compared analyses of semi-structured interviews with analyses of audio-recordings of practitioner-family dialogue during trial recruitment discussions. Parents from 59 families were interviewed; 41 had participated in audio-recorded recruitment discussions. 31 practitioners were interviewed. Parents said little in the recruitment discussions contributing a median 16% of the total dialogue and asking a median of one question. Despite this, parents reported a positive experience of the trial approach describing a sense of comfort and safety. Even if they declined or if the discussion took place at a difficult time, parents understood the need to approach them and spoke of the value of research. Some parents viewed participation as an 'exciting' opportunity. By contrast, practitioners often worried that approaching families about research burdened families. Some practitioners implied that recruiting to clinical trials was something which they found aversive. Many were also concerned about the amount of information they had to provide and believed this overwhelmed families. Whilst some practitioners thought the trial information leaflets were of little use to families, parents reported that they used and valued the leaflets. However, both parties agreed that the leaflets were too long and wanted them to be more reader-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents were more positive about being approached to enter their child into a clinical trial than practitioners anticipated. The concerns of some practitioners, that parents would be overburdened, were unfounded. Educating practitioners about how families perceive clinical trials and providing them with 'moral' support in approaching families may benefit paediatric research and, ultimately, patients.

Parents' attitudes to neonatal research involving venepuncture

The objective of the study was to explore parental experiences of being offered participation in a previous neonatal research study involving venepuncture. The method employed was a questionnaire-based exploration of parents' attitudes in those approached to participate in a study of term and preterm immunization responses (Preterm Immunisation Study [PREMIS]). We explored experience of the initial approach, knowledge of study, venepuncture and views on research ‘in general’. In all, 59% of families responded. Highest response rates were for those participating in PREMIS (87% term/69% preterm) and lowest in decliners (34% and 35%). Responding parents participating in PREMIS were well informed, positive about research and did not find the venepuncture problematic. Sixty percent of responding parents who declined PREMIS attributed their declining to the need for venepuncture. In conclusion, parents participating or declining a neonatal study involving venepuncture are different, but participating parents were well informed and seemed able to judge that participation was right for them such that in consenting families venepuncture itself is not problematic.

Presence of both parents during consent process in non-therapeutic neonatal research increases positive response

AIM

To investigate factors that influenced parental consent/non-consent in a non-therapeutic electroencephalogram (EEG) study in healthy newborns.

METHODS

Parents of healthy newborns were approached to participate in a neonatal EEG study within 36 h of birth. The rationale and risks/benefits of the study were explained. Any concerns were discussed, and detailed information about the EEG study was provided in the consent form. In the case of refusing/withdrawing consent, an informal interview was used to investigate the reasons, which were subsequently analysed and grouped according to the four principles of the consent process.

RESULTS

A total of 123 parents were included in the study. Parental consent was obtained in 72/123 (59%) cases, 10/123 (8%) parents subsequently withdrew their consent and 41/123 (33%) parents refused to participate in the study. Consent was more likely if both parents were present (p < 0.0001). When the mothers were approached alone, obtaining consent was significantly more difficult within the first 6 hours of delivery, compared to a later approach (37% vs. 67% respectively; p = 0.009). Refusals were classified into issues of voluntariness (7%), informed choice (10%), understanding (54%) and competence (29%).

CONCLUSION

Parents of healthy newborns demonstrated a positive attitude towards non-therapeutic neonatal research with maximal consent occurring when both parents were present. Parental perception of harm was the main reason for declining consent.

Advancing evidence in preterm neonatal medicine

Few interventions and treatments for premature infants have undergone the rigors of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare. Multiple barriers in establishing a quality evidence base for the care of preterm infants are examined including the systematic exclusion of children from drug trials, vulnerability of the infants, burden to families of the consent process for RCTs, and the lack of standard measurements and subgroup definitions that impede systematic reviews. Delays in getting evidence into practice are highlighted, including clinician knowledge of existing evidence, attitudes about the evidence, and behavior. Landmark trials are used as examples. Finally, a call for the research community to develop guidance on good clinical research practice for preterm infants is offered that will allow the synthesis of the totality of evidence.

More information, less understanding: a randomized study on consent issues in neonatal research

BACKGROUND

Valid consent for research requires comprehensive and understandable information to be disclosed to participants. The way that information is shared varies, but regulatory bodies usually determine style. Some reports have suggested that although information may be all-inclusive, it does little to support understanding.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the impact of various information-sharing approaches on parents' understanding of a research study and the validity of their consent.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled trial. Parents of immature but well infants admitted to a large tertiary NICU in Edinburgh, Scotland, were randomly assigned within 72 hours of their infant's admission to receive 1 of 2 information leaflets, with or without a standardized verbal explanation, for a hypothetical intensive care research study. The leaflets differed in length and in the amount of detail in which the study process, risks, benefits, and patient rights were described. A questionnaire was used to elicit understanding about the purpose of the research, design of the study, procedures involved, and the consent process.

RESULTS

Forty-one parents participated in the study. Those who received the longer leaflet without verbal explanation gained only limited understanding of the purpose of the research. The procedures involved in the study were understood better by those who received the shorter leaflet. Issues relating to consent and study design were readily understood in all groups. Irrespective of documentation style, verbal explanation significantly improved understanding. Differences in understanding had little effect on whether a parent would enroll his or her infant into the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Verbal explanation significantly enhances understanding of the research process for participants regardless of the style of written documentation. However, shorter written information may lead to better understanding than lengthy, more complex documentation.

Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is a critical component of clinical research. Different methods of presenting information to potential participants of clinical trials may improve the informed consent process. Audio-visual interventions (presented for example on the Internet, DVD, or video cassette) are one such method.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of providing audio-visual information alone, or in conjunction with standard forms of information provision, to potential clinical trial participants in the informed consent process, in terms of their satisfaction, understanding and recall of information about the study, level of anxiety and their decision whether or not to participate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register (searched 20 June 2006); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2006; MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to June week 1 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (1988 to 2006 week 24); and other databases. We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles, and contacted study authors and experts. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing audio-visual information alone, or in conjunction with standard forms of information provision (such as written or oral information as usually employed in the particular service setting), with standard forms of information provision alone, in the informed consent process for clinical trials. Trials involved individuals or their guardians asked to participate in a real (not hypothetical) clinical study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Due to heterogeneity no meta-analysis was possible; we present the findings in a narrative review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 4 trials involving data from 511 people. Studies were set in the USA and Canada. Three were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the fourth a quasi-randomised trial. Their quality was mixed and results should be interpreted with caution. Considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of audio-visual interventions, compared with standard forms of information provision (such as written or oral information normally used in the particular setting), for use in the process of obtaining informed consent for clinical trials. Audio-visual interventions did not consistently increase participants' levels of knowledge/understanding (assessed in four studies), although one study showed better retention of knowledge amongst intervention recipients. An audio-visual intervention may transiently increase people's willingness to participate in trials (one study), but this was not sustained at two to four weeks post-intervention. Perceived worth of the trial did not appear to be influenced by an audio-visual intervention (one study), but another study suggested that the quality of information disclosed may be enhanced by an audio-visual intervention. Many relevant outcomes including harms were not measured. The heterogeneity in results may reflect the differences in intervention design, content and delivery, the populations studied and the diverse methods of outcome assessment in included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The value of audio-visual interventions for people considering participating in clinical trials remains unclear. Evidence is mixed as to whether audio-visual interventions enhance people's knowledge of the trial they are considering entering, and/or the health condition the trial is designed to address; one study showed improved retention of knowledge amongst intervention recipients. The intervention may also have small positive effects on the quality of information disclosed, and may increase willingness to participate in the short-term; however the evidence is weak. There were no data for several primary outcomes, including harms. In the absence of clear results, triallists should continue to explore innovative methods of providing information to potential trial participants. Further research should take the form of high-quality randomised controlled trials, with clear reporting of methods. Studies should conduct content assessment of audio-visual and other innovative interventions for people of differing levels of understanding and education; also for different age and cultural groups. Researchers should assess systematically the effects of different intervention components and delivery characteristics, and should involve consumers in intervention development. Studies should assess additional outcomes relevant to individuals' decisional capacity, using validated tools, including satisfaction; anxiety; and adherence to the subsequent trial protocol.