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

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.

Challenges and best practices for recruiting families of children with intellectual disabilities for health research

Research focused on children with intellectual disabilities has been of increasing interest over the last two decades. However, a considerable lag in the amount of research that is representative and generalizable to this population in comparison to neurotypical children remains, largely attributed to issues with participant engagement and recruitment. Challenges and barriers associated with engaging and recruiting this population include lack of research to provide a sound foundation of knowledge, ethical considerations, parental attitudes, family commitments, and organizational gatekeeping. Researchers can engage children and their families using participatory research methods, honouring the child's right to assent, and collaborating with parents. Recruitment strategies include partnering with organizations, working with parent and patient partners, and using remote methods. Employing evidence-informed engagement and recruitment strategies may provide substantial social and scientific value to the research field by ensuring that this underrepresented population benefits equitably from research findings.

Nurses' Knowledge, Communication Needs, and Future Directions in Neonatal Research: Results of an International Survey

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is a significant contributor to neonatal morbidity and mortality. Despite legislative efforts to increase pediatric drug development, neonatal clinical trials continue to be infrequent. The International Neonatal Consortium (INC) includes nurses as key stakeholders in their mission to accelerate safe and effective therapies for neonates.

PURPOSE

INC developed a survey for nurses, physicians, and parents to explore communication practices and stakeholders' perceptions and knowledge regarding clinical trials in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).

METHODS

A stepwise consensus approach was used to solicit responses to an online survey. The convenience sample was drawn from INC organizations representing the stakeholder groups. Representatives from the National Association of Neonatal Nurses and the Council of International Neonatal Nurses, Inc, participated in all stages of the survey development process, results analysis, and publication of results.

RESULTS

Participants included 188 nurses or nurse practitioners, mainly from the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan; 68% indicated some level of research involvement. Nurses expressed a lack of effective education to prepare them for participation in research. Results indicated a lack of a central information source for staff and systematic approaches to inform families of studies. The majority of nurses indicated they were not asked to provide input into clinical trials. Nurses were uncertain about research consent and result disclosure processes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

This study indicates the need to educate nurses in research, improve NICU research communication through standardized, systematic pathways, and leverage nurse involvement to enhance research communication.

Implementing two-stage consent pathway in neonatal trials

Perinatal trials sometimes require rapid recruitment processes to facilitate inclusion of participants when interventions are time-critical. A two-stage consent pathway has been used in some trials and is supported by national guidance. This pathway includes seeking oral assent for participation during the time-critical period followed by informed written consent later. This approach is being used in the fluids exclusively enteral from day one (FEED1) trial where participants need to be randomised within 3 hours of birth. There is some apprehension about approaching parents for participation via the oral assent pathway. The main reasons for this are consistent with previous research: lack of a written record, lack of standardised information and unfamiliarity with the process. Here, we describe how the pathway has been implemented in the FEED1 trial and the steps the trial team have taken to support sites. We provide recommendations for future trials to consider if they are considering implementing a similar pathway. Trial registration number: ISRCTN89654042.

Sleep patterns and psychosocial health of parents of preterm and full-born infants: a prospective, comparative, longitudinal feasibility study

Background

The early birth and hospitalization of a preterm infant in neonatal intensive care unit can produce several emotional and behavioural responses including sleep problems for parents. Few studies have explored sleep and its associations with health and HRQoL over time in this vulnerable parent population. This purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a prospective, comparative, longitudinal study of the sleep patterns and psychosocial health of preterm and full-born infants’ parents during the first postpartum year.

Methods

A prospective, comparative, longitudinal feasibility study was conducted. Parents of preterm infants were compared to parents of full-born infants to identify if there were differences in outcomes between the groups. The parents were instructed to wear actigraphs and complete sleep diaries for two consecutive weeks, and responded to a digital questionnaire covering stress, insomnia, fatigue, depression, social support, self-efficacy, and health-related quality of life. Survey data were collected at infant ages of 2, 6, and 12 months, actigraphy and sleep diary data were collected at infant age of 2 months only. Descriptive analysis was used to describe recruitment and attrition rates. Differences between completers and dropouts were analysed with a chi-square test (categorical data) and Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon test for two independent samples (continuous variables).

Results

Between June 2019 and March 2020, 25 parents of a preterm infant and 78 parents of a full-born infant were recruited from four neonatal intensive care units and two maternity wards, respectively, in four Norwegian hospitals. Feasibility was predefined as recruiting ≥ 75 parents each of preterm and full-born infants. The target for the full-born group was reached. However, the preterm group recruitment was challenging. Actigraphs, sleep diaries, and questionnaires were evaluated as feasible for use in a future study. Attrition rates were high in both groups at 6 and 12 months. No parent-related characteristics were associated with participation at 6 months. At 12 months, dropouts had a statistically significantly lower age in the full-born group (both parents) and higher age and body mass index in the preterm group (fathers).

Conclusions

A longitudinal study is feasible; however, procedural changes, including using active methods and contacting participants, are necessary to increase the recruitment of preterm infants’ parents.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-022-04862-1.

The culture of research communication in neonatal intensive care units: key stakeholder perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To assess the perspectives of neonatologists, neonatal nurses, and parents on research-related education and communication practices in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

STUDY DESIGN

Questionnaire circulated through interest groups and administered using the internet.

RESULTS

323 respondents responded to the survey. 52 were neonatologists, 188 were neonatal nurses, and 83 were parents of NICU graduates. Analysis was descriptive. Differences were noted between stakeholder groups with respect to whether current medications meet the needs of sick neonates, research as central to the mission of the NICU, availability of appropriate education/training for all members of the research team, and adequacy of information provided to parents before, during, and after a research study is completed.

CONCLUSION

Engagement of nurses and parents at all stages of NICU research is currently suboptimal; relevant good practices, including education, should be shared among neonatal units.

Parental Attitudes toward Consent for Music Intervention Studies in Preterm Infants: A Cross-Sectional Study

(1) Background: This study investigated parents' motives for enrolling preterm infants into music therapy intervention studies during Neonatal Intensive Care hospitalization. (2) Methods: We surveyed Israeli parents of preterm infants after they consented or refused to participate in such studies. The pre-piloted questionnaires evaluated attitudes toward research and music therapy intervention studies. The study included 116 (57%) parents who agreed to participate in music therapy studies and 87 (43%) who declined. (3) Results: Infants of those who agreed to participate were younger (17 ± 2.3 vs. 28 ± 4.7 days old, p = 0.03) and sicker (Clinical Risk Index for Babies score 6.1 ± 2.7 vs. 3.68 ± 4.1, p = 0.04). More single-parent families declined to participate (p = 0.05). Parents agreed to participate because they thought the study might help their child, would improve future care of preterm infants and increase medical knowledge (all p < 0.05). In addition, they perceived music as beneficial for brain development, thought it might improve bonding, and routinely listened to music daily. (4) Conclusions: When recruiting parents and preterm infants for music therapy intervention studies, one should highlight potential contributions to the child's health, future children's health and medical knowledge. Stressing music as a potential tool for brain development and augmenting bonding is important. The best time to recruit is when improvements are still anticipated.

Prioritising key motivators and challenges influencing informal carers' decisions for participating in randomised trials: An embedded Study Within A before and after Trial (SWAT 55)

Background: Family members, or others, often assume the role of informal (unpaid) carers of people with chronic illnesses. Care-giving, however, can impact profoundly on the quality of life of carers and can cause carer worry, stress and guilt. Implementing interventions that positively affect the lives of carers is important; however, carers as a group are often difficult to reach. We embedded a study within a pilot-feasibility trial of a mindfulness based intervention to determine and prioritise the key motivators and challenges influencing informal carers' decisions for participating in a trial. Methods: We used a multi-method approach involving interviews with participants from a ' host trial' and data from systematic reviews to develop a survey that was distributed to informal carers in Ireland. The survey consisted of 28 motivator and 17 challenge statements. Participants rated how important they thought each statement was when deciding to take part in a trial on a 5-point Likert Scale. Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for each statement and arranged in descending order to provide the priority lists. Results: Thirty-six carers responded to the survey. Helping to create awareness about carers was the top ranked motivator, followed by four study design statements related to the time at which the study occurs, the study location, format of delivery and venue. The least important motivator related to how carers were invited to take part in a study. Difficulties in planning due to the caring role emerged as the most important challenge, followed by being unable to leave the care recipient on his/her own. Conclusions: Insight into decision-making for research participation will assist trial developers tailor trial processes for informal carer populations. We recommend that trialists should consider these motivators and challenges when designing future trials involving informal carers so as to enhance trial feasibility and success.

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.

Understanding parents' decision-making on participation in clinical trials in children's heart surgery: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Few children undergoing heart surgery are recruited to clinical trials and little is known about the views and attitudes of parents towards trials. This study explored parents' perspectives on decision-making about their child's participation in a clinical trial during their elective cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING

Single-centre substudy of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial to investigate the effects of remote ischaemic preconditioning in children undergoing cardiac surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Parents of children approached to participate in the trial, both consenters and decliners.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone following discharge, digitally audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Of 46 patients approached for the trial, 24 consenting and 2 declining parents agreed to participate in an interview (21 mothers, 5 fathers). Parental decision-making about research was influenced by (1) potential risks or additional procedures; (2) personal benefit and altruism for the 'cardiac community'; (3) information, preparation, timing and approach; and (4) trust in the clinical team and collaboration with researchers. All of these were placed within the context of their understanding of the trial and knowledge of research.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents of children undergoing cardiac surgery attach value to clinical research and are supportive of clinical trials when there is no or minimal perceived additional risk. These findings enhance our understanding of the factors that influence parents' decision-making and should be used to inform the design and conduct of future paediatric surgical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12923441; Pre-results.

Parental experiences of being approached to join multiple neonatal clinical trials: qualitative study (PARENT)

OBJECTIVE

To explore parents' perceptions and experience of being approached for enrolment of their preterm infant in more than one trial or study.

DESIGN

A qualitative study involving 17 in-depth semistructured interviews, with parents who had been approached for multiple studies and who subsequently consented for their infant(s) to join at least one. Parents who declined all studies were not approached.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Parents of preterm infants receiving care at one of three neonatal intensive care units in the north of England.

FINDINGS

Most parents did not view concurrent participation in multiple trials or studies as a significant issue within the wider context of their infant's care. Most parents did not feel pressured into enrolling their infant into more than one study, but some suggested that participation in several provided justification for the subsequent refusal to join others, articulating feeling of guilt at saying 'no', and others appeared fatigued by multiple approaches. Parents focused on the perceived risks and benefits of each individual study and, while acknowledging that making a fully informed decision was not possible, largely agreed due to their belief in the benefits of research, trust in the health professionals caring for their baby and a range of complex personal motivations.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents valued the autonomy to make decisions about participation and felt, with hindsight, that their decisions were right. Research teams could be more aware of parental feelings of guilt or gratitude that may motivate them to give consent. Similarly, the capacity of parents to fully remember details of multiple studies when they are stressed, and their infant is sick, should be taken into consideration, and continued efforts should be made to ensure ongoing consent to participation.

Clinical Research in Neonates: Redesigning the Informed Consent Process in the Digital Era

Background: Currently, many initiatives are devoted to optimizing informed consent for participation in clinical research. Due to the digital transformation in health care, a shift toward electronic informed consent (eIC) has been fostered. However, empirical evidence on how to implement eIC in clinical research involving neonates is lacking. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 health care professionals active in Belgium or the Netherlands. All health care professionals had experience in conducting clinical research involving neonates. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using the framework method. Results: Interviewees generally supported the use of eIC in clinical research involving neonates. For example, eIC could enable parents to receive study feedback via the eIC system. Requirements were expressed for parental involvement to decide on which feedback would be appropriate to return. Moreover, experts specialized in presenting information and designing electronic systems should be involved. Broad consensus among health care professionals indicates that the face-to-face-interaction between parents and the research team is vital to establish a relationship of trust. Therefore, it is necessary that the use of eIC runs alongside personal interactions with the parents. Concerns were raised about the accessibility of eIC to parents. For this reason, it was suggested that parents should always be given the possibility to read and sign a paper-based informed consent form or to use eIC. Conclusions: Health care professionals' views indicate that the use of eIC in clinical research with neonates may offer various opportunities. Further development and implementation will require a multi-stakeholder approach.

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.

Prioritising key motivators and challenges influencing informal carers’ decisions for participating in randomised trials: An embedded Study Within A before and after Trial (SWAT 55)

Background: Family members, or others, often assume the role of informal (unpaid) carers of people with chronic illnesses. Care-giving, however, can impact profoundly on the quality of life of carers and can cause carer worry, stress and guilt. Implementing interventions that positively affect the lives of carers is important; however, carers as a group are often difficult to reach. We embedded a study within a pilot-feasibility trial of a mindfulness based intervention to determine and prioritise the key motivators and challenges influencing informal carers’ decisions for participating in a trial. Methods: We used a multi-method approach involving interviews with participants from a ‘host trial’ and data from systematic reviews to develop a survey that was distributed to informal carers in Ireland. The survey consisted of 28 motivator and 17 challenge statements. Participants rated how important they thought each statement was when deciding to take part in a trial on a 5-point Likert Scale. Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for each statement and arranged in descending order to provide the priority lists. Results: Thirty-six carers responded to the survey. Helping to create awareness about carers was the top ranked motivator, followed by four study design statements related to the time at which the study occurs, the study location, format of delivery and venue. The least important motivator related to how carers were invited to take part in a study. Difficulties in planning due to the caring role emerged as the most important challenge, followed by being unable to leave the care recipient on his/her own. Conclusions: Insight into decision-making for research participation will assist trial developers tailor trial processes for informal carer populations. We recommend that trialists should consider these motivators and challenges when designing future trials involving informal carers so as to enhance trial feasibility and success.

Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method

Framework synthesis is one systematic review method employed to address health care practice and policy. Adapted from framework analysis methods, it has been used increasingly, using both qualitative and mixed-method systematic review methods. This article demonstrates a spectrum of approaches to framework synthesis that are dependent on the extent to which theory is tentative, emergent, refined, or established; and that stakeholder involvement may help to understand the topic's complexity where theory is more nascent. The choice of approach depends on the degree of match with existing theories and, in the absence of existing theory, the scale and heterogeneity of the literature to be managed.

Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT

BACKGROUND

Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents.

SETTING

The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment.

INTERVENTIONS

When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability.

RESULTS

The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention.

LIMITATIONS

The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered.

CONCLUSIONS

No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Operationalising kangaroo Mother care before stabilisation amongst low birth Weight Neonates in Africa (OMWaNA): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to examine mortality impact in Uganda

BACKGROUND

There are 2.5 million neonatal deaths each year; the majority occur within 48 h of birth, before stabilisation. Evidence from 11 trials shows that kangaroo mother care (KMC) significantly reduces mortality in stabilised neonates; however, data on its effect among neonates before stabilisation are lacking. The OMWaNA trial aims to determine the effect of initiating KMC before stabilisation on mortality within seven days relative to standard care. Secondary objectives include exploring pathways for the intervention's effects and assessing incremental costs and cost-effectiveness between arms.

METHODS

We will conduct a four-centre, open-label, individually randomised, superiority trial in Uganda with two parallel groups: an intervention arm allocated to receive KMC and a control arm receiving standard care. We will enrol 2188 neonates (1094 per arm) for whom the indication for KMC is 'uncertain', defined as receiving ≥ 1 therapy (e.g. oxygen). Admitted singleton, twin and triplet neonates (triplet if demise before admission of ≥ 1 baby) weighing ≥ 700-≤ 2000 g and aged ≥ 1-< 48 h are eligible. Treatment allocation is random in a 1:1 ratio between groups, stratified by weight and recruitment site. The primary outcome is mortality within seven days. Secondary outcomes include mortality within 28 days, hypothermia prevalence at 24 h, time from randomisation to stabilisation or death, admission duration, time from randomisation to exclusive breastmilk feeding, readmission frequency, daily weight gain, infant-caregiver attachment and women's wellbeing at 28 days. Primary analyses will be by intention-to-treat. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated in a process evaluation. Cost data will be collected and used in economic modelling.

DISCUSSION

The OMWaNA trial aims to assess the effectiveness of KMC in reducing mortality among neonates before stabilisation, a vulnerable population for whom its benefits are uncertain. The trial will improve understanding of pathways underlying the intervention's effects and will be among the first to rigorously compare the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of KMC relative to standard care. The findings are expected to have broad applicability to hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, where three-quarters of global newborn deaths occur, as well as important policy and programme implications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432. Registered on 23 June 2016.

Informed consent for neonatal trials: practical points to consider and a check list

Obtaining informed consent from parents of critically ill neonates can be challenging. The parental decision-making process is influenced by the severity of the child's condition, the benefit-risk balance, their emotional state and the quality of the relationship with the clinical team. Independent of local legislation, parents may prefer that consent is sought from both. Misconceptions about the absence of risks or unrealistic expectations about benefits should be openly addressed to avoid misunderstandings which may harm the relationship with the clinical team. Continuous consent can be sought where it is unclear whether the free choice of parental consent has been compromised. Obtaining informed consent is a dynamic process building on trusting relationships. It should include open and honest discussions about benefits and risks. Investigators may benefit from training in effective communication. Finally, involving parents in neonatal research including the development of the informed consent form and the process of obtaining consent should be considered standard practice.

Reducing research waste by promoting informed responses to invitations to participate in clinical trials

Poor recruitment to, and retention in, clinical trials is a source of research waste that could be reduced by more informed choices about participation. Barriers to effective recruitment and retention can be wide-ranging but relevance of the questions being addressed by trials and the outcomes that they are assessing are key for potential participants. Decisions about trial participation should be informed by general and trial-specific information and by considering broader assessments of 'informedness' and how they impact on both recruitment and retention. We suggest that more informed decisions about trial participation should encourage personally appropriate decisions, increase recruitment and retention, and reduce research waste and increase its value.

Improving quality of care and outcome at very preterm birth: the Preterm Birth research programme, including the Cord pilot RCT

Background

Being born very premature (i.e. before 32 weeks’ gestation) has an impact on survival and quality of life. Improving care at birth may improve outcomes and parents’ experiences.

Objectives

To improve the quality of care and outcomes following very preterm birth.

Design

We used mixed methods, including a James Lind Alliance prioritisation, a systematic review, a framework synthesis, a comparative review, qualitative studies, development of a questionnaire tool and a medical device (a neonatal resuscitation trolley), a survey of practice, a randomised trial and a protocol for a prospective meta-analysis using individual participant data.

Setting

For the prioritisation, this included people affected by preterm birth and health-care practitioners in the UK relevant to preterm birth. The qualitative work on preterm birth and the development of the questionnaire involved parents of infants born at three maternity hospitals in southern England. The medical device was developed at Liverpool Women’s Hospital. The survey of practice involved UK neonatal units. The randomised trial was conducted at eight UK tertiary maternity hospitals.

Participants

For prioritisation, 26 organisations and 386 individuals; for the interviews and questionnaire tool, 32 mothers and seven fathers who had a baby born before 32 weeks’ gestation for interviews evaluating the trolley, 30 people who had experienced it being used at the birth of their baby (19 mothers, 10 partners and 1 grandmother) and 20 clinicians who were present when it was being used; for the trial, 261 women expected to have a live birth before 32 weeks’ gestation, and their 276 babies.

Interventions

Providing neonatal care at very preterm birth beside the mother, and with the umbilical cord intact; timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth.

Main outcome measures

Research priorities for preterm birth; feasibility and acceptability of the trolley; feasibility of a randomised trial, death and intraventricular haemorrhage.

Review methods

Systematic review of Cochrane reviews (umbrella review); framework synthesis of ethics aspects of consent, with conceptual framework to inform selection criteria for empirical and analytical studies. The comparative review included studies using a questionnaire to assess satisfaction with care during childbirth, and provided psychometric information.

Results

Our prioritisation identified 104 research topics for preterm birth, with the top 30 ranked. An ethnographic analysis of decision-making during this process suggested ways that it might be improved. Qualitative interviews with parents about their experiences of very preterm birth identified two differences with term births: the importance of the staff appearing calm and of staff taking control. Following a comparative review, this led to the development of a questionnaire to assess parents’ views of care during very preterm birth. A systematic overview summarised evidence for delivery room neonatal care and revealed significant evidence gaps. The framework synthesis explored ethics issues in consent for trials involving sick or preterm infants, concluding that no existing process is ideal and identifying three important gaps. This led to the development of a two-stage consent pathway (oral assent followed by written consent), subsequently evaluated in our randomised trial. Our survey of practice for care at the time of birth showed variation in approaches to cord clamping, and that no hospitals were providing neonatal care with the cord intact. We showed that neonatal care could be provided beside the mother using either the mobile neonatal resuscitation trolley we developed or existing equipment. Qualitative interviews suggested that neonatal care beside the mother is valued by parents and acceptable to clinicians. Our pilot randomised trial compared cord clamping after 2 minutes and initial neonatal care, if needed, with the cord intact, with clamping within 20 seconds and initial neonatal care after clamping. This study demonstrated feasibility of a large UK randomised trial. Of 135 infants allocated to cord clamping ≥ 2 minutes, 7 (5.2%) died and, of 135 allocated to cord clamping ≤ 20 seconds, 15 (11.1%) died (risk difference –5.9%, 95% confidence interval –12.4% to 0.6%). Of live births, 43 out of 134 (32%) allocated to cord clamping ≥ 2 minutes had intraventricular haemorrhage compared with 47 out of 132 (36%) allocated to cord clamping ≤ 20 seconds (risk difference –3.5%, 95% CI –14.9% to 7.8%).

Limitations

Small sample for the qualitative interviews about preterm birth, single-centre evaluation of neonatal care beside the mother, and a pilot trial.

Conclusions

Our programme of research has improved understanding of parent experiences of very preterm birth, and informed clinical guidelines and the research agenda. Our two-stage consent pathway is recommended for intrapartum clinical research trials. Our pilot trial will contribute to the individual participant data meta-analysis, results of which will guide design of future trials.

Future work

Research in preterm birth should take account of the top priorities. Further evaluation of neonatal care beside the mother is merited, and future trial of alternative policies for management of cord clamping should take account of the meta-analysis.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003038 and CRD42013004405. In addition, Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21456601.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Women's experiences of participating in a randomised trial comparing alternative policies for timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth: a questionnaire study

BACKGROUND

The Cord Pilot Trial compared two alternative policies for cord-clamping at very preterm birth at eight UK tertiary maternity units: clamping after at least 2 min and immediate neonatal care with cord intact, or clamping within 20 s and neonatal care after clamping. This paper reports views and experiences of the women who participated in the trial (261 randomised), based on data from two self-completed questionnaires.

METHODS

Women were given or posted the first questionnaire between 4 and 8 weeks after birth, and posted a second similar questionnaire at 1 year. Both questionnaires included three questions about experiences of participating in the trial: (1) If time suddenly went backwards and you had to do it all over again, would you agree to participate in the Cord Pilot Trial?; (2) Please tell us if there was anything about the Cord Pilot Trial that you think could have been done better; and (3) Please tell us if there was anything about the Cord Pilot Trial, or your experiences of joining the trial, that you think were particularly good.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-six women completed the first questionnaire and 133 completed the second. At both time points, 90% responded 'probably' or 'definitely' to participating in the trial again. More women randomised to deferred clamping responded 'definitely yes' than those allocated immediate clamping (78% versus 67% first questionnaire). Women were positive about the level of information and explanations, the friendly and caring staff, and the benefits for their baby and others as a result of participating in the trial. Suggestions for how the trial could be done better included being approached earlier, better staff communication about the trial, more information overall, and better timing of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Women were largely positive about participating in the trial. Nevertheless, they had suggestions for how the study could have been improved. These suggestions have implications for the design of future trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN21456601 . Registered on 28 February 2013.

Cord pilot trial, comparing alternative policies for timing of cord clamping before 32 weeks gestation: follow-up for women up to one year

BACKGROUND

The Cord Pilot Trial compared two alternative policies for cord clamping at very preterm birth at eight UK maternity units: clamping after at least 2 min and immediate neonatal care (if needed) with cord intact, or clamping within 20 s and neonatal care after clamping. This paper reports follow-up of the women by two self-completed questionnaires up to one year after the birth.

METHODS

Women were given or posted the first questionnaire between four and eight weeks after birth, usually before their baby was discharged, and were posted a second similar questionnaire at one year. The questionnaire included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; the Preterm Birth Experience and Satisfaction Scale (P-BESS) and questions about their baby's feeding.

RESULTS

Of 261 women randomised (132 clamping ≥2 min, 129 clamping ≤20 s), six were excluded as birth was after 35+ 6 weeks (2, 4 in each group respectively). Six were not sent either questionnaire. The first questionnaire was given/sent to 244 and returned by 186 (76%) (79, 74%). The second, at one year, was sent to 242 and returned by 133 (55%) (66, 43%). On the first questionnaire, 89 (49%) had a score suggestive of an anxiety disorder, and 55 (30%) had a score suggestive of depression. Satisfaction with care at birth was high: median total P-BESS score 77 [interquartile range 68 to 84] (scale 17 to 85). There was no clear difference in anxiety, depression, or satisfaction with care between the two allocated groups. The median number of weeks after birth women breastfed/expressed was 16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 13 to 20, n = 119) for those allocated clamping ≥2 min and 12 (95% CI 11 to 16, n = 103) for those allocated clamping ≤20 s.

CONCLUSIONS

The response rate was higher for the earlier questionnaire than at one year. A high proportion of women reported symptoms of anxiety or depression, however there were no clear differences between the allocated groups. Most women reported that they had breastfed or expressed milk and those allocated deferred cord clamping reported continuing this for slightly longer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 21456601, registered 28th February 2013, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21456601.

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.

Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 research priorities identified within the PRioRiTy study

How can we improve recruitment to trials? In their recently published paper, Healy et al. outline the top 10 prioritised questions for trial recruitment research identified by the PRioRiTy study. The challenge now is for researchers to answer these questions; but how best can these be answered? In this commentary, we illustrate how qualitative research can be utilised to generate in-depth insight into trial recruitment issues, either as a stand-alone methodology, or through a mixed-methods approach. Consideration is given to how different forms of qualitative research can be used to address these priorities and to help researchers set out an agenda to optimise its value.

Women's views and experiences of two alternative consent pathways for participation in a preterm intrapartum trial: a qualitative study

Background

The Cord Pilot Trial compared alternative policies for timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth at eight UK hospitals. In addition to standard written consent, an oral assent pathway was developed for use when birth was imminent. The aim of this study was to explore women’s views and experiences of two alternative consent pathways to participate in the Cord Pilot Trial.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. A total of 179 participants in the Cord Pilot Trial were sent a postal invitation to take part in interviews. Women who agreed were interviewed in person or by telephone to explore their experiences of two consent pathways for a preterm intrapartum trial. Data were analysed using inductive systematic thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-three women who gave either written consent (n = 18) or oral assent followed by written consent (n = 5) to participate in the trial were interviewed. Five themes were identified: (1) understanding of the implications of randomisation, (2) importance of staff offering participation, (3) information about the trial and time to consider participation, (4) trial secondary in women’s minds and (5) reasons for agreeing to take part in the trial. Experiences were similar for the two consent pathways. Women recruited by the oral assent pathway reported being given less information about the trial but felt it was sufficient to make a decision regarding participation. There were gaps in women’s understanding of the trial and intervention, regardless of the consent pathway.

Conclusions

Overall, women were positive about their experiences of being invited to participate in the trial. The oral assent pathway seems an acceptable option for women if the intervention is low-risk and time is limited.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21456601. Registered on 28 February 2013.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2149-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

'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/ .

Clinicians' views and experiences of offering two alternative consent pathways for participation in a preterm intrapartum trial: a qualitative study

Background

The Cord Pilot Trial compared alternative policies for timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth at eight UK hospitals. Preterm birth can be rapid and unexpected, allowing little time for the usual consent process. Therefore, in addition to the usual procedure for written consent, a two-stage pathway for consent for use when birth was imminent was developed. The aims of this study were to explore clinicians’ views and experiences of offering two consent pathways for recruitment to a randomised trial of timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth.

Methods

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Clinicians from eight hospitals in the UK who had been involved in offering consent to the Cord Pilot Trial were invited to take part in an interview. Clinicians were interviewed in person or by telephone. Interviews were analysed using inductive systematic thematic analysis.

Results

Seventeen clinicians who had either offered usual written consent only (n = 6) or both the two-stage pathway (with oral assent before the birth and written consent after the birth) and usual written consent (n = 11) were interviewed. Six themes were identified: (1) team approach to offering participation; (2) consent form as a record; (3) consent and participation as a continual process; (4) different consent pathways for different trials; (5) balance between time, information, and understanding; and (6) validity of consent. Overall, clinicians were supportive of the two-stage consent pathway. Some clinicians felt that in time-critical situations oral assent presented an advantage over the usual written consent as they provided information on a “need to know” basis. However, there was some concern about how much information should be given for oral assent, and how this is understood by women when birth is imminent.

Conclusions

The two-stage pathway for consent developed for use in the Cord Pilot Trial when birth was imminent was acceptable to clinicians for comparable low-risk studies, although some concerns were raised about the practicalities of obtaining oral assent.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21456601. Registered on 28 February 2013.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1940-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the analytical (theoretical/philosophical) 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 the parents of these infants at such a difficult time raises challenges to obtaining valid informed consent for such research. In this study, we asked, What light does the analytical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to obtaining informed consent in perinatal clinical trials?

METHODS

In a systematic search, we identified 30 studies. We began our analysis by applying philosophical frameworks, which were then refined as concepts emerged from the analytical studies, to present a coherent picture of a broad literature.

RESULTS

Between them, the studies addressed four themes. The first three were the ethical basis for parental informed consent for neonatal and/or perinatal research, the validity of parental consent in this context, and the range of possible options in methods for gaining consent. The last was the issue of risk and the possibility of a double-standard or asymmetry in the current approaches to the requirement for consent for research and consent for clinical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In addressing these issues, the analysed studies showed that, whilst there are a variety of possible defences for seeking parental 'consent' to neonatal and/or perinatal clinical trials, these are all consistent with the strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give (or decline) consent for such research. So far as the method of obtaining consent is concerned, none of the existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory, and there are philosophical reasons for supposing that at least some parents will fail to give valid consent in a neonatal context. Furthermore, in giving parental 'consent' in a perinatal context, parents are authorising infant participation, not giving 'proxy consent'. Finally, there are reasons for giving weight to both parental 'consent' and the infant's best interests in both research and clinical treatment. However, there are also reasons to treat these factors differently in the two contexts, and this may be partly due to the differing relevance of risk in each case. A significant gap is the lack of any detailed discussion of a process of emergency and/or urgent 'assent', in which parents assent or refuse their baby's participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to continuing participation and follow-up.