The ethics of obtaining consent in labour for research

Barriers and Facilitators to the Participation of Pregnant Women in Clinical Research: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Pregnant women had a large demand for diagnosis and treatment, but the clinical research was not sufficient, and there were many barriers for pregnant women to participate in clinical research. This study aimed to systematically identify these barriers and facilitators, map them with Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs) to inform the development of interventions promoting pregnant women's involvement in clinical research.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods systematic review. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and related references were searched. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies exploring barriers and facilitators to pregnant women's participation in clinical trials were included. The barriers and facilitators were extracted, after transforming the quantitative data into qualitative data, all qualitative data were used to thematic synthesis. The identified barriers and facilitators were mapped into TDF and BCTs.

RESULTS

A total of 103 studies (66 qualitative, 24 quantitative, and 13 mixed-methods) were included. Three main themes were formed: personal factors, environmental factors and research characteristics, with identified barriers and facilitators within each theme. "Knowledge," "Environmental Context and Resources," and "Beliefs about Consequences" were the main domains where barriers and facilitators identified by pregnant women and researchers were mapped in TDF. Additionally, the barriers and facilitators identified by pregnant women also mapped on "Social Influences" and "Goals." "Instruction on how to perform a behavior," "restructuring the physical environment," "salience of consequences," "social support (unspecified)," "goal setting (outcome)" were the main BCTs identified based on barriers and facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

The barriers and facilitators to clinical research participation identified in this study involved three main themes of personal, environmental, and research characteristics, which mainly mapped to five TDF domains. Based on these barriers and facilitators, 23 BCTs were identified. Future research should focus on developing behavior change interventions, assessing their efficacy and implementability.

Factors influencing the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials: A mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal-fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.

Parturients feel capable of giving informed consent for epidural analgesia: A qualitative and quantitative analysis

INTRODUCTION

The patient's right to autonomy confirmed by informed consent is a cornerstone in modern medicine. Epidural analgesia is increasingly popular in obstetric analgesia, but physicians disagree whether labour pain impairs parturient decision-making. We investigated the fraction of parturients feeling capable of giving informed consent including their knowledge of risks.

METHODS

Bedside survey postpartum women at the Herlev Hospital, Denmark. The inclusion criteria were recipient of epidural analgesia during labour. A power calculation based on the recognition of genuine and false side effects required the inclusion of 50 participants.

RESULTS

Forty out of fifty (80%) of the participants felt they could make a judicious consent during labour and 46 out of 50 (92%) felt they knew enough about epidural analgesia to give consent to the procedure again if necessary. Participants spontaneously reported a median of two risks associated with epidural analgesia. Additionally, when prompted with a cued list of true and false risks from epidural analgesia, the participants reported on average 5.1 genuine risks compared with 0.4 made-up risks. The difference (4.7) suggests the included women could discern genuine risks from made-up risks.

DISCUSSION

The majority of participants reported the capacity to give informed consent. Our quantitative results show the participants could clearly distinguish genuine risks of epidural labour analgesia from made-up risks. Our qualitative data likewise suggest that participants understood the information and consequently their informed consent was genuine. Accordingly, parturients are able to give informed consent. This is supported by parturients' ability to identify risks from epidural labour analgesia.

Rapid establishment of a COVID-19 perinatal biorepository: early lessons from the first 100 women enrolled

BACKGROUND

Collection of biospecimens is a critical first step to understanding the impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women and newborns - vulnerable populations that are challenging to enroll and at risk of exclusion from research. We describe the establishment of a COVID-19 perinatal biorepository, the unique challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and strategies used to overcome them.

METHODS

A transdisciplinary approach was developed to maximize the enrollment of pregnant women and their newborns into a COVID-19 prospective cohort and tissue biorepository, established on March 19, 2020 at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). The first SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnant woman was enrolled on April 2, and enrollment was expanded to SARS-CoV-2 negative controls on April 20. A unified enrollment strategy with a single consent process for pregnant women and newborns was implemented on May 4. SARS-CoV-2 status was determined by viral detection on RT-PCR of a nasopharyngeal swab. Wide-ranging and pregnancy-specific samples were collected from maternal participants during pregnancy and postpartum. Newborn samples were collected during the initial hospitalization.

RESULTS

Between April 2 and June 9, 100 women and 78 newborns were enrolled in the MGH COVID-19 biorepository. The rate of dyad enrollment and number of samples collected per woman significantly increased after changes to enrollment strategy (from 5 to over 8 dyads/week, P < 0.0001, and from 7 to 9 samples, P < 0.01). The number of samples collected per woman was higher in SARS-CoV-2 negative than positive women (9 vs 7 samples, P = 0.0007). The highest sample yield was for placenta (96%), umbilical cord blood (93%), urine (99%), and maternal blood (91%). The lowest-yield sample types were maternal stool (30%) and breastmilk (22%). Of the 61 delivered women who also enrolled their newborns, fewer women agreed to neonatal blood compared to cord blood (39 vs 58, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing a COVID-19 perinatal biorepository required patient advocacy, transdisciplinary collaboration and creative solutions to unique challenges. This biorepository is unique in its comprehensive sample collection and the inclusion of a control population. It serves as an important resource for research into the impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women and newborns and provides lessons for future biorepository efforts.

Would you like to participate in this trial? The practice of informed consent in intrapartum research in the last 30 years

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical conduct and protection of the rights and wellbeing of participants in clinical research. Therefore, it is important to identify the most appropriate moments for the participants to be informed and to give consent, so that they are able to make a responsible and autonomous decision. However, the optimal timing of consent in clinical research during the intrapartum period remains controversial, and currently, there is no clear guidance.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe practices of informed consent in intrapartum care clinical research in the last three decades, as reported in uterotonics for postpartum haemorrhage prevention trials.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the studies included in the Cochrane review entitled "Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis" published in 2018. All the reports included in the Cochrane network meta-analysis were eligible for inclusion in this analysis, except for those reported in languages other than English, French or Spanish. We extracted and synthesized data on the time each of the components of the informed consent process occurred.

RESULTS

We assessed data from 192 studies, out of 196 studies included in the Cochrane review. The majority of studies (59.9%, 115 studies) reported that women were informed about the study, without specifying the timing. When reported, most studies informed women at admission to the facility for childbirth. Most of the studies reported that consent was sought, but only 59.9% reported the timing, which in most of the cases, was at admission for childbirth. Among these, 32 studies obtained consent in the active phase of labour, 17 in the latent phase and in 10 studies the labour status was unknown. Women were consented antenatally in 6 studies and in 8 studies the consent was obtained indistinctly during antenatal care or at admission. Most of the studies did not specified who was the person who sought the informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Practices of informed consent in trials on use of uterotonics for prevention of postpartum haemorrhage showed variability and substandard reporting. Informed consent sought at admission for childbirth was the most frequent approach implemented in these trials.

How well do women understand and remember information in labour versus in late pregnancy? A pilot randomised study

Medical informed consent is the process by which a 'competent', non-coerced individual receives sufficient information including risks of a medical procedure and gives permission for it to occur. The capacity to give an informed consent might be impaired during labour. This study aimed to examine women's abilities to understand and remember during labour. Women were prospectively recruited at 36 weeks of gestation and randomised to undertake questionnaires which assessed their ability to understand and remember information. They were randomised to: (1) information given in labour only, written format (2) information in labour, verbal (3) information at 36 weeks plus labour, written (4) information at 36 weeks plus labour, verbal. Immediate comprehension and retention was assessed at 36 weeks, in labour, and 24-72 hours after birth. Forty-nine women completed the questionnaires regarding understanding and retention of information at 36 weeks, six intrapartum, and five postpartum (90% attrition). Women receiving information at 36 weeks and in labour versus in labour had a higher comprehension of pregnancy-related information, its retention, and total score. Women receiving information in late pregnancy and labour may comprehend and retain it better than women only receiving information during labour. Given small sample size, further research is needed to support these preliminary findings. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? The evidence regarding the capacity of labouring women to give informed consent is largely based on women's self-reported experiences or expert opinions and has mixed findings. Existing guidelines recommend that an informed consent should be given antenatally for both clinical practice and research. Studies show that obtaining an informed consent antenatally is neither feasible nor widely implemented. What do the results of this study add? A novel approach to providing empirical evidence regarding women's capacity to comprehend and retain information during labour. Our study confirms the difficulty with antenatal recruitment for intrapartum research. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/further research? This raises ethical concerns regarding the current intrapartum research in which consent is largely sought at the time of the study. Emphasises the need to explore the question 'Do labouring women have the capacity to consent to research?' in order to ensure that women are protected during labour.

Attitudes Toward Research During Residency: A Survey of Canadian Residents in Obstetrics and Gynecology

OBJECTIVES

Obstetrics and Gynecology (Ob/Gyn) residency programs in Canada mandate participation in scholarly research activity, yet there remains a lack of literature on trainees' opinions regarding its value, feasibility, and perceived effect on future practice. An understanding of resident attitudes toward research during residency is essential in effectively engaging trainees and fostering a robust research community in the field. We sought to identify factors reported to influence involvement in resident research, including perceived barriers.

DESIGN

Anonymous data were collected via an online survey distributed to all residents enrolled in accredited Ob/Gyn residency programs throughout Canada. The 10-minute, previously piloted questionnaire covered questions related to demographic information, research experience, career goals, current research activities, opinions on research environment, and opinions regarding the effect of research on future practice. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographics, research background, and current research activities. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square analysis and continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney rank sum tests.

RESULTS

A total of 175 residents completed the survey; 61% agreed/strongly agreed that they participate in research solely because it is mandated by their program, 22% felt that their training environment did not promote research, 19% disagreed/strongly disagreed that research is a positive experience, while 70% agreed/strongly agreed that they would prefer to complete another educational activity other than a research project. Time constraints owing to residency duties, time constraints owing to personal reasons, and lack of statistical knowledge were reported as barriers to research involvement by 97%, 90%, and 74% of trainees, respectively. Residents with graduate degrees were less likely to report lack of training on research design as a moderate/extreme barrier (7% vs 32%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

There exists considerable disparity in enthusiasm for scholarly research activity among Ob/Gyn residents. Curricular development should focus on addressing resident-reported barriers, including the provision of protected time for research and access to statistical support and education, particularly for residents without graduate degrees.

Pregnant women's views on informed consent for research in labour

BACKGROUND

Studies of the optimal treatment of accidental dural puncture occurring during epidural insertion in labour are difficult for practical reasons and because of the ethical issues around seeking consent. In a recent study of accidental dural puncture, participants were assigned to one of two treatment groups and only informed about the study and consent sought, after treatment. We sought the views of parturients on the timing of consent for such a study.

METHODS

After ethical approval and written consent, 100 nulliparous women in the third trimester of pregnancy completed a structured, facilitated questionnaire, rating the acceptability of the consent process occurring: (i) in antenatal clinic; (ii) after the epidural was requested in labour; (iii) after the accidental dural puncture had occurred but before treatment; (iv) after the allocated treatment; or (v) without consent (waived consent). Results were analysed with the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

Antenatal consent was considered the most acceptable option, whilst consent on request for epidural analgesia and after accidental dural puncture were least acceptable. Consent after treatment and waived consent were rated in-between these extremes. There was a statistically significant difference between these three groups (P<0.0001). There was a wide range of opinions on each option presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Antenatal consent was the preferred option but if this is not possible and the need for the research is strong, consent for the use of women's data after intervention, or waived consent, is acceptable to many women. It is important to seek the views of the participants themselves before planning research with difficult ethical aspects.

Impact on caesarean section rates following injections of sterile water (ICARIS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sterile water injections have been used as an effective intervention for the management of back pain during labour. The objective of the current research is to determine if sterile water injections, as an intervention for back pain in labour, will reduce the intrapartum caesarean section rate.

METHODS/DESIGN

DESIGN

A double blind randomised placebo controlled trialSetting: Maternity hospitals in AustraliaParticipants: 1866 women in labour, ≥18 years of age who have a singleton pregnancy with a fetus in a cephalic presentation at term (between 37 + 0 and 41 + 6 weeks gestation), who assess their back pain as equal to or greater than seven on a visual analogue scale when requesting analgesia and able to provide informed consent.

INTERVENTION

Participants will be randomised to receive either 0.1 to 0.3 millilitres of sterile water or a normal saline placebo via four intradermal injections into four anatomical points surrounding the Michaelis' rhomboid over the sacral area. Two injections will be administered over the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) and the remaining two at two centimetres posterior, and one centimetre medial to the PSIS respectively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Proportion of women who have a caesarean section in labour.Randomisation: Permuted blocks stratified by research site.Blinding (masking):Double-blind trial in which participants, clinicians and research staff blinded to group assignment.

FUNDING

Funded by the National Health and Medical Research CouncilTrial registration:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (No ACTRN12611000221954).

DISCUSSION

Sterile water injections, which may have a positive effect on reducing the CS rate, have been shown to be a safe and simple analgesic suitable for most maternity settings. A procedure that could reduce intervention rates without adversely affecting safety for mother and baby would benefit Australian families and taxpayers and would reduce requirements for maternal operating theatre time. Results will have external validity, as the technique may be easily applied to maternity populations outside Australia. In summary, the results of this trial will contribute High level evidence on the impact of SWI on intrapartum CS rates and provide evidence of the analgesic effect of SWI on back pain.