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

Alternative consent methods used in the multinational, pragmatic, randomised clinical trial SafeBoosC-III

BACKGROUND

The process of obtaining prior informed consent for experimental treatment does not fit well into the clinical reality of acute and intensive care. The therapeutic window of interventions is often short, which may reduce the validity of the consent and the rate of enrolled participants, to delay trial completion and reduce the external validity of the results. Deferred consent and 'opt-out' are alternative consent methods. The SafeBoosC-III trial was a randomised clinical trial investigating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring in extremely preterm infants during the first 3 days after birth, starting within the first 6 h after birth. Prior, deferred and opt-out consent were all allowed by protocol. This study aimed to evaluate the use of different consent methods in the SafeBoosC-III trial, Furthermore, we aimed to describe and analyse concerns or complaints that arose during the first 6 months of trial conduct.

METHODS

All 70 principal investigators were invited to join this descriptive ancillary study. Each principal investigator received a questionnaire on the use of consent methods in their centre during the SafeBoosC-III trial, including the possibility to describe any concerns related to the consent methods used during the first 6 months of the trial, as raised by the parents or the clinical staff.

RESULTS

Data from 61 centres were available. In 43 centres, only prior informed consent was used: in seven, only deferred consent. No centres used the opt-out method only, but five centres used prior and deferred, five used prior, deferred and opt-out (all possibilities) and one used both deferred and opt-out. Six centres applied to use the opt-out method by their local research ethics committee but were denied using it. One centre applied to use deferred consent but was denied. There were only 23 registered concerns during the execution of the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Consent by opt-out was allowed by the protocol in this multinational trial but only a few investigators opted for it and some research ethics boards did not accept its use. It is likely to need promotion by the clinical research community to unfold its potential.

Preterm Formula, Fortified or Unfortified Human Milk for Very Preterm Infants, the PREMFOOD Study: A Parallel Randomised Feasibility Trial

OBJECTIVE

Uncertainty exists regarding optimal supplemental diet for very preterm infants if the mother's own milk (MM) is insufficient. We evaluated feasibility for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) powered to detect important differences in health outcomes.

METHODS

In this open, parallel, feasibility trial, we randomised infants 25+0-31+6 weeks of gestation by opt-out consent to one of three diets: unfortified human milk (UHM) (unfortified MM and/or unfortified pasteurised human donor milk (DM) supplement), fortified human milk (FHM) (fortified MM and/or fortified DM supplement), and unfortified MM and/or preterm formula (PTF) supplement from birth to 35+0 weeks post menstrual age. Feasibility outcomes included opt-outs, adherence rates, and slow growth safety criteria. We also obtained anthropometry, and magnetic resonance imaging body composition data at term and term plus 6 weeks (opt-in consent).

RESULTS

Of 35 infants randomised to UHM, 34 to FHM, and 34 to PTF groups, 21, 19, and 24 infants completed imaging at term, respectively. Study entry opt-out rate was 38%; 6% of parents subsequently withdrew from feeding intervention. Two infants met predefined slow weight gain thresholds. There were no significant between-group differences in term total adipose tissue volume (mean [SD]: UHM: 0.870 L [0.35 L]; FHM: 0.889 L [0.31 L]; PTF: 0.809 L [0.25 L], p = 0.66), nor in any other body composition measure or anthropometry at either timepoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomisation to UHM, FHM, and PTF diets by opt-out consent was acceptable to parents and clinical teams, associated with safe growth profiles and no significant differences in body composition. Our data provide justification to proceed to a larger RCT.

The view of Hong Kong parents on secondary use of dried blood spots in newborn screening program

Background

Residual dried blood spots (rDBS) from newborn screening programmes represent a valuable resource for medical research, from basic sciences, through clinical to public health. In Hong Kong, there is no legislation for biobanking. Parents’ view on the retention and use of residual newborn blood samples could be cultural-specific and is important to consider for biobanking of rDBS.

Objective

To study the views and concerns on long-term storage and secondary use of rDBS from newborn screening programmes among Hong Kong Chinese parents.

Methods

A mixed-method approach was used to study the views and concerns on long-term storage and secondary use of rDBS from newborn screening programmes among Hong Kong Chinese parents of children 0–3 years or expecting parents through focus groups (8 groups; 33 participants) and a survey (n = 1012, 85% mothers) designed with insights obtained from the focus groups. We used framework analysis to summarise the themes as supportive factors, concerns and critical arguments for retention and secondary use of rDBS from focus group discussion. We used multiple logistic regression to assess factors associated with support for retention and secondary use of rDBS in the survey.

Results

Both in focus groups and survey, majority of parents were not aware of the potential secondary use of rDBS. Overall secondary use of rDBS in medical research was well accepted by a large proportion of Hong Kong parents, even if all potential future research could not be specified in a broad consent. However parents were concerned about potential risks of biobanking rDBS including leaking of data and mis-use of genetic information. Parents wanted to be asked for permission before rDBS are stored and mainly did not accept an “opt-out” approach. The survey showed that parents born in mainland China, compared to Hong Kong born parents, had lower awareness of newborn screening but higher support in biobanking rDBS. Higher education was associated with support in rDBS biobanking only among fathers.

Conclusion

Long-term storage and secondary use of rDBS from newborn screening for biomedical research and a broad consent for biobanking of rDBS are generally acceptable to Hong Kong parents given their autonomy is respected and their privacy is protected, highlighting the importance of an accountable governance and a transparent access policy for rDBS biobanks.

Neonatal stroke surveillance study protocol in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland

Neonatal stroke is a devastating condition that causes brain injury in babies and often leads to lifelong neurological impairment. Recent prospective population studies of neonatal stroke are lacking. Neonatal strokes are different from those in older children and adults. A better understanding of its aetiology, current management, and outcomes could reduce the burden of this rare condition. The study aims to explore the incidence and 2 year outcomes of neonatal stroke across an entire population in the UK and Republic of Ireland. This is an active national surveillance study using a purpose-built integrated case notification-data collection online platform. Over a 13 month period, with a potential 6 month extension, clinicians will notify neonatal stroke cases presenting in the first 90 days of life electronically via the online platform monthly. Clinicians will complete a primary questionnaire via the platform detailing clinical information, including neuroimaging, for analysis and classification. An outcome questionnaire will be sent at 2 years of age via the platform. Appropriate ethics and regulatory approvals have been received. The neonatal stroke study represents the first multinational population surveillance study delivered via a purpose-built integrated case notification-data collection online platform and data safe haven, overcoming the challenges of setting up the study.

Incorporating parent, former patient and clinician perspectives in the design of a national UK double-cluster, randomised controlled trial addressing uncertainties in preterm nutrition

Background

Comparative effectiveness randomised controlled trials are powerful tools to resolve uncertainties in existing treatments and care processes. We sought parent and patient perspectives on the design of a planned national, double-cluster randomised controlled trial (COLLABORATE) to resolve two longstanding uncertainties in preterm nutrition.

Methods

We used qualitative focus groups and interviews with parents, former patients and clinicians. We followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist and conducted framework analysis, a specific methodology within thematic analysis.

Results

We identified support for the trial's methodology and vision, and elicited themes illustrating parents' emotional needs in relation to clinical research. These were: relieving the pressure on mothers to breastfeed; opt-out consent as reducing parent stress; the desire for research to be a partnership between clinicians, parents and researchers; the value of presenting trial information in a collaborative tone; and in a format that allows assimilation by parents at their own pace. We identified anxiety and cognitive dissonance among some clinicians in which they recognised the uncertainties that justify the trial but felt unable to participate because of their strongly held views.

Conclusions

The early involvement of parents and former patients identified the centrality of parents' emotional needs in the design of comparative effectiveness research. These insights have been incorporated into trial enrolment processes and information provided to participants. Specific outputs were a two-sided leaflet providing very brief as well as more detailed information, and use of language that parents perceive as inclusive and participatory. Further work is warranted to support clinicians to address personal biases that inhibit trial participation.