Willingness of pregnant women and clinicians to participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section

Women's and clinician's acceptability of participation in a hypothetical obstetric randomized controlled trial: a qualitative survey

BACKGROUND

Involving patients and consumers in research design helps ensure relevance for those affected by the problem being investigated and can optimize recruitment to clinical trials. This is particularly important when conducting research involving pregnant women.

AIMS

We investigated women's motivations to participate in a hypothetical randomized control trial (RCT) of a third-trimester screening test for intrapartum fetal compromise (IFC) and adverse perinatal outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women attending for routine antenatal care at a tertiary center were invited to complete a short, anonymized patient acceptability survey. The survey was developed with the assistance of the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand's Consumer Advisory Panel and consisted of Likert scales and open-ended questions. It was designed to ascertain women's responses to research issues, particularly the acceptability of being randomized to a non-revealed arm of a screening test RCT.

RESULTS

100 pregnant women took part; 40% indicated that they would agree/strongly agree to participate in a hypothetical RCT regardless of whether they were given the result of a screening test and 31% were unsure. Randomization to either an intervention or control group was acceptable to 47%, 30% were unsure and 23% were not willing to be randomized. Reasons to participate included the desire to contribute to research and to improve pregnancy care.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in an RCT of a screening test for IFC involving non-disclosure of the test result was acceptable to a large minority of pregnant women. This finding supports the feasibility of conducting a large-scale study of this design.

Feasibility and design of a trial regarding the optimal mode of delivery for preterm birth: the CASSAVA multiple methods study

BACKGROUND

Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks' gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section).

OBJECTIVE

The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 'Mode of delivery for preterm infants').

METHODS

We conducted clinician and patient surveys (n = 224 and n = 379, respectively) to identify current practice and opinion, and a consensus survey and Delphi workshop (n = 76 and n = 22 participants, respectively) to inform the design of a hypothetical clinical trial. The protocol for this clinical trial/vignette was used in telephone interviews with clinicians (n = 24) and in focus groups with potential participants (n = 13).

RESULTS

Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26-32 weeks' gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches.

CONCLUSION

Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved.

FUTURE WORK

The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment.

LIMITATIONS

Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Feasibility of Conducting a Trial Assessing Benefits and Risks of Planned Caesarean Section Versus Planned Vaginal Birth: A Cross-Sectional Study

INTRODUCTION

Though interest is growing for trials comparing planned delivery mode (vaginal delivery [VD]; cesarean section [CS]) in low-risk nulliparous women, appropriate study design is unclear. Our objective was to assess feasibility of three designs (preference trial [PCT], randomized controlled trial [RCT], partially randomized patient preference trial [PRPPT]) for a trial comparing planned delivery mode in low-risk women.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of low-risk, nulliparous pregnant women (N = 416) and healthcare providers (N = 168) providing prenatal care and/or labor/delivery services was conducted in Argentina (2 public, 2 private hospitals). Proportion of pregnant women and providers willing to participate in each design and reasons for not participating were determined.

RESULTS

Few women (< 15%) or professionals (33.3%) would participate in an RCT, though more would participate in PCTs (88% women; 65.9% professionals) or PRPPTs (44.4% public, 63.4% private sector women; 44.0% professionals). However, most women would choose vaginal delivery in the PCT and PRPPT (> 85%). Believing randomization unacceptable (RCT, PRPPT) and desiring choice of delivery mode (RCT) were women's reasons for not participating. For providers, commonly cited reasons for not participating included unacceptability of performing CS without medical indication, difficulty obtaining informed consent, discomfort enrolling patients (all designs), and violating women's right to choose (RCT).

CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE

Important limitations were found for each trial design evaluated. The necessity of stronger evidence regarding delivery mode in low-risk women suggests consideration of additional designs, such as a rigorously designed cohort study or an RCT within an obstetric population with equivocal CS indications.

Perinatal epidemiology: Issues, challenges, and potential solutions

Perinatal epidemiology research is concerned with identifying the effects of events during pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes that include maternal, fetal, and neonatal health outcomes. Randomized trials in perinatal research face many challenges, including randomization difficulties, ethical considerations, and inadequate statistical power due to the small number of subjects eligible for participation. For these reasons, most epidemiological studies conducted in this research field are observational and include different types of bias. This review describes the key methodological difficulties in the design and analysis of randomized and observational studies in perinatal epidemiology, and provides potential corrective approaches.

Cesarean delivery to prevent anal incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cesarean delivery (CD), is increasingly recommended as a mode of delivery that prevents the anal incontinence (AI) that arises in some women after vaginal delivery (VD). The assessment of the efficacy of CD in this regard was the subject of this systematic review.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Both randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized trials (NRTs) comparing the risk of sustained fecal and/or flatus incontinence after VD or CD were sought from 1966 to 1 January, 2019. Studies were eligible if they assessed AI more than 6 months after birth, and had statistical adjustment for at least one of the three major confounders for AI: age, maternal weight or parity. In addition, each study was required to contain more than 250 participants, more than 50 CDs and more than 25 cases of AI. Data after screening and selection were abstracted and entered into Revman for meta-analysis. Analyses were done for combined fecal and flatus incontinence (comAI), fecal incontinence (FI), gas incontinence (GI), CD before or during labor, time trend of incontinence after delivery, assessment of both statistical and clinical heterogeneity, parity and late incident AI.

RESULTS

Out of the 2526 titles and abstracts found, 24 eligible studies were analyzed, 23 NRTs and one RCT. These included women with 29,597 VDs and women with 6821 CDs. Among the primary outcomes, VD was found not to be a significant predictor of postpartum comAI compared to CD in 6 studies, incorporating 18,951 deliveries (OR = 0.74; 0.54-1.02). VD was also not a significant predictor of FI in 14 studies, incorporating 29,367 deliveries, (OR = 0.89; 0.76-1.05). VD was not a significant predictor of GI in six studies, incorporating 6724 deliveries (OR = 0.96; 0.79-1.18). The strength of the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE) evidence for each of these was low for comAI and moderate for FI and GI (upgrade for lack of expected effect). Time trend FI showed incontinence at 3 months often resolved at 1 year. Other secondary analyses assessing parity, delayed incidence of FI, clinical and statistical heterogeneity, spontaneous VD only, late risk of incidence of AI, and CD in or prior to labor all had similar results as in the primary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There are three components of pelvic floor dysfunction that are thought to be caused by VD and hopefully prevented by CD: AI, urinary incontinence and pelvic floor prolapse. Of these, AI was not found to be reliably prevented by CD in this review.

A qualitative study on stakeholders' views on the participation of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study: a low-risk obstetrical RCT

BACKGROUND

Bioethicists argue that inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research should be more routine to increase the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses. Yet, it is unknown whether pregnant women and others directly involved are willing to be routinely included. Therefore, we first need to establish what these stakeholders think about research participation in regular pregnancy-related research. However, studies on their views are scarce. In our study, we piggy-backed on a relatively conventional RCT, the APOSTEL VI study, to identify the views of stakeholders on inclusion of pregnant women in this study.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed pregnant women (n = 14) recruited for the APOSTEL VI study, in addition to healthcare professionals (n = 14), Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) (n = 5) and regulators (n = 7) involved in clinical research in pregnant women.

RESULTS

Three themes characterise stakeholders' views on inclusion of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study. Additionally, one theme characterises stakeholders' interest in inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general. First, pregnant women participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and secondarily for altruistic motives, contrary to hypothetical studies. Second, a gatekeeping tendency hampers recruitment of pregnant women who might be eligible and willing, and questions about pregnant women's decisional capacities surface. Third, healthcare professionals sometimes use the counselling conversation to steer pregnant women in a direction. Fourth, all stakeholders are hesitant about inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general due to a protective sentiment.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women are willing to participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and altruistic motives. However, an underlying protective sentiment, resulting in gatekeeping and directive counselling, sometimes hampers recruitment in the APOSTEL VI study as well as in clinical research in general. While bioethicists claim that inclusion of pregnant women should be customary, our study indicates that healthcare professionals, regulators, RECs and pregnant women themselves are not necessarily interested in inclusion. Advancing the situation and increasing the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses may require additional measures such as investing in the recruitment and feasibility of RCTs and stimulating pregnant women's decisional capacities.

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.

Optimizing Participation of Pregnant Women in Clinical Trials: Factors Influencing Decisions About Participation in Medication and Vaccine Trials

OBJECTIVE

To obtain information on women's attitudes and opinions about participation in vaccine and medication trials during pregnancy.

METHODS

A quantitative, cross-sectional survey was administered to 110 consenting women over a four-week period in the waiting room of an ambulatory obstetrics and gynaecology clinic in Ontario.

RESULTS

The final response rate was 74.8%, with the majority of participants agreeing with statements about the importance of obtaining safety data about products in pregnancy and the importance of a woman having the ability to choose whether to participate in such research. Of all participants, 16.3% indicated they would consider participating in vaccine research during pregnancy and 20.0% would consider participating in medication research during pregnancy. Factors relating to maternal or fetal/child health were the most frequently cited factors influencing willingness to participate, with lack of trust in researchers and pharmaceutical companies as factors that would discourage participation.

CONCLUSION

A minority of pregnant women were willing to consider participating in medication or vaccine research during pregnancy. Optimizing participation requires providing women (and if appropriate, their partners) with detailed, multidisciplinary education about the maternal and fetal benefits and risks of such trials. Education about the principles of research ethics, including the limits of involvement of pharmaceutical companies, would be beneficial.

Characteristics of participants in peripartum interventional research

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics of pregnant women potentially influencing the decision to participate in peripartum interventional research.

METHODS

Women screened as eligible to participate in two prospective interventional trials conducted in the labor and delivery unit at a single center were included. Characteristics of eligible women were compared based on their decision whether to participate or not. The best predictors of research participation were identified using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 605 subjects who screened as eligible to participate, 363 (60%) agreed to participate and 242 (40%) declined. Women using a private obstetric provider or who had prior obstetrical complications were less likely to participate [aOR 0.6 (95% CI: 0.4-0.8)] and [aOR 0.6 (95% CI: 0.4-0.9)], respectively. A history of a mental health condition and a higher body mass index (BMI) were marginally more likely to participate [aOR 1.5 (95% CI: 1.0-2.3)] and [aOR 1.03 (95% CI: 1.0-1.1)], respectively. Overall logistic regression model R(2) was 0.23.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences between eligible subjects who decide to participate or not participate in prospective peripartum interventional research. There is a need to better understand non-participation in order to improve recruitment of representative populations that allow more generalizable research results.

Recruitment difficulties in obstetric trials: a case study and review

BACKGROUND

The CONSORT statement calls for complete data on flow of participants, including all losses and exclusions. Incomplete reporting of flow into trials versus flow through trials is not uncommon. Where complete data exist in obstetric trials, poor recruitment seems a recurring theme.

AIMS

To explore difficulties in recruitment and differences between assessed-but-not-recruited and included women to improve future trial participation, using a case study of a recently published randomised trial of outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient PGE2 gel for cervical ripening.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The assessed-but-not-recruited population of an obstetric trial (ACTRN:12609000420246) was prospectively studied for reasons for noninclusion, demographic data and pregnancy outcome. Women assessed-but-not-recruited due to declined consent or obstetrician declined participation were compared to included women. Main outcome measures included demographic and outcome differences associated with trial participation.

RESULTS

Of 468 assessed participants, 220 (47%) were not eligible by exclusion criteria (potential 'trial factor' recruitment difficulties), 147 (31%) declined consent (n = 100, 'participant factor') or their obstetrician declined participation (n = 47, 'clinician factor') and 101 (22%) were included. Declining women were more likely than participants to be parous (24 vs 10%, P < 0.05), induced for nonmedical reasons (18 vs 4%, P < 0.001), privately admitted (31 vs 3%, P < 0.001) and have longer inpatient stay (4.9 vs 4.2 days, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The high assessed-but-not-recruited rate highlights important issues with external validity and feasibility when conducting obstetric trials, including recruitment difficulties related to participant, clinician and trial factors. Assessed: recruited ratios and demographic and outcome differences need consideration in planning and interpretation of randomised trials.

The long-term effects of birth by caesarean section: the case for a randomised controlled trial

Birth by caesarean section is rising rapidly around the world and is associated with a range of adverse short and long-term outcomes in offspring. The latter include features of the metabolic syndrome, type-1 diabetes, and asthma. Though there are several plausible candidate biological mechanisms, evidence of a causal relationship between mode of delivery and long-term outcomes remains lacking. Here we review the evidence to date, and examine ways in which future studies might advance understanding. We conclude that a randomised controlled trial of mode of delivery for the healthy term, cephalic pregnancy, is neither unethical nor unfeasible and should be seriously considered as the optimum means of addressing a question of great relevance to public health.

Cesarean delivery for the prevention of anal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Caesarean delivery (CD) is a common form of delivery of a baby, rising in frequency. One reason for its performance is to preserve maternal pelvic floor function, part of which is anal continence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the ability of CD in comparison to vaginal delivery (VD) to preserve anal continence in a systematic review

SEARCH STRATEGY

Search terms include: "Caesarean section, Cesarean delivery, vaginal delivery, incontinence and randomised". PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) were searched from their inception through July, 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Both randomised and non-randomised studies that allowed comparisons of post partum anal continence (both fecal and flatus) in women who had had babies delivered by either CD or VD were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Mode of delivery, and when possible mode of all previous deliveries prior to the index pregnancy were extracted, as well as assessment of continence post partum of both faeces and flatus. In Non-RCTs, available adjusted odds ratios were the primary end point sought. Incontinence of flatus is reported as a separate outcome. Summary odds ratios are not presented as no study was analysed as a randomised controlled trial. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) are presented, that is, the number of CDs needed to be performed to prevent a single case of fecal or flatus incontinence, for each individual study. Quality criteria were developed, selecting studies that allowed maternal age adjustment, studies that allowed a sufficient time after the birth of the baby for continence assessment and studies in which mode of delivery of prior pregnancies was known. Subgroup analyses were done selecting studies meeting all quality criteria and in comparisons of elective versus emergency CD, elective CD versus VD and nulliparous women versus those delivered by VD or CD, in each case again, not calculating a summary risk statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

Twentyone reports have been found eligible for inclusion in the review, encompassing 31,698 women having had 6,028 CDs and 25,170 VDs as the index event prior to anal continence assessment . Only one report randomised women (with breech presentation) to CD or VD, but because of extensive crossing over, 52.1%, after randomisation, it was analysed along with the other 20 studies as treated, i.e. as a non-randomised trial. Only one of these reports demonstrated a significant benefit of CD in the preservation of anal continence, a report in which incontinence incidence was extremely high, 39% in CD and 48% in VD, questioning, relative to other reports, the timing and nature of continence assessment. The greater the quality of the report, the closer its Odds ratio approached 1.0. There was no difference in continence preservation in women have emergency versus elective CD.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Without demonstrable benefit, preservation of anal continence should not be used as a criterion for choosing elective primary CD. The strength of this conclusion would be greatly strengthened if there were studies that randomised women with average risk pregnancies to CD versus VD.