Participating in Research for Pregnancy Complicated by Breech

Clinical Research With Pregnant Women: Perspectives of Pregnant Women, Health Care Providers, and Researchers

Limited clinical research with pregnant women has resulted in insufficient data to promote evidence-informed prenatal care. Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory methodology was used to explore how research with pregnant women would be determined ethically acceptable from the perspectives of pregnant women, health care providers, and researchers in reproductive sciences. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 12 pregnant women, 10 health care providers, and nine reproductive science researchers. All three groups suggested the importance of informed consent and that permissible risk would be very limited and complex, being dependent on the personal benefits and risks of each particular study. Pregnant women, clinicians, and researchers shared concerns about the well-being of the woman and her fetus, and expressed a dilemma between promoting research for evidence-informed prenatal care while securing the safety in the course of research participation.

Facilitators and barriers to pregnant women's participation in research: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although there is consensus among many that exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research should be justified, there is uncertainty as to whether and why pregnant women themselves would be willing to participate even if they were found to be eligible. The objective was to identify the reasons why pregnant women participate in clinical research and thereby to distinguish between facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of articles regarding pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We used the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and retrieved additional articles through manually searching the reference lists. We included all articles that reported on pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We accumulated all reasons that were mentioned in the total of articles and collated them to themes, classifying these themes as a facilitator or a barrier.

RESULTS

The search identified thirty articles that met the inclusion criteria. Themes classified as facilitators: aspirational benefits, collateral benefits, direct benefits, third party influence and lack of inconvenience. Themes classified as barriers: inconveniences, risks, randomisation, lack of trust in research enterprise, medical reasons and third party influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women report mostly altruistic and personal reasons for their willingness to participate in clinical research, while barriers primarily relate to inconveniences. It appears that pregnant women's described reasoning is similar to the described reasoning of non-pregnant research subjects. Enhancing the facilitators and overcoming the barriers is the next step to increase the evidence-base underlying maternal and foetal health.

Person-oriented research ethics: integrating relational and everyday ethics in research

Research ethics is often understood by researchers primarily through the regulatory framework reflected in the research ethics review process. This regulatory understanding does not encompass the range of ethical considerations in research, notably those associated with the relational and everyday aspects of human subject research. In order to support researchers in their effort to adopt a broader lens, this article presents a "person-oriented research ethics" approach. Five practical guideposts of person-oriented research ethics are identified, as follows: (1) respect for holistic personhood; (2) acknowledgement of lived world; (3) individualization; (4) focus on researcher-participant relationships; and (5) empowerment in decision-making. These guideposts are defined and illustrated with respect to different aspects of the research process (e.g., research design, recruitment, data collection). The person-oriented research ethics approach provides a toolkit to individual researchers, research groups, and research institutions in both biomedical and social science research wishing to expand their commitment to ethics in research.

Women's experiences of planning a vaginal breech birth in Australia

Background

In many countries, planned vaginal breech birth (VBB) is a rare event. After the Term Breech Trial in 2000, VBB reduced and caesarean section for breech presentation increased. Despite this, women still request VBB. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences and decision-making processes of women who had sought a VBB.

Methods

A qualitative study using descriptive exploratory design was undertaken. Twenty-two (n = 22) women who planned a VBB, regardless of eventual mode of birth were recruited. The women had given birth at one of two maternity hospitals in Australia that supported VBB. In-depth, semi-structured interviews using an interview guide were conducted. Interviews were analysed thematically.

Results

Twenty two women were interviewed; three quarters were primiparous (n = 16; 73%). Nine (41%) were already attending a hospital that supported VBB with the remaining women moving hospitals. All women actively sought a vaginal breech birth because the baby remained breech after an external cephalic version – 12 had a vaginal birth (55%) and 10 (45%) a caesarean section after labour commenced. There were four main themes: Reacting to a loss of choice and control, Wanting information that was trustworthy, Fighting the system and seeking support for VBB and The importance of ‘having a go’ at VBB.

Conclusions

Women seeking a VBB value clear, consistent and relevant information in deciding about mode of birth. Women desire autonomy to choose vaginal breech birth and to be supported in their choice with high quality care.