Participating in a trial in a critical situation: a qualitative study in pregnancy

Caring for Pregnant Patients with Cancer: A Framework for Ethical and Patient-Centred Care

(1) Background: Caring for pregnant cancer patients is clinically and ethically complex. There is no structured ethical guidance for healthcare professionals caring for these patients. (2) Objective: This concept paper proposes a theoretically grounded framework to support ethical and patient-centred care of pregnant cancer patients. (3) Methodological approach: The framework development was based on ethical models applicable to cancer care during pregnancy-namely principle-based approaches (biomedical ethics principles developed by Beauchamp and Childress and the European principles in bioethics and biolaw) and relational, patient-focused approaches (relational ethics, ethics of care and medical maternalism)-and informed by a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. (4) Results: Five foundational discussion themes, summarising the key ethical considerations that should be taken into account by healthcare professionals while discussing treatment and care options with these patients, were identified. This was further developed into a comprehensive ethics checklist that can be used during clinical appointments and highlights the need for a holistic view to patient treatment, care and counselling while providing ethical, patient-centric care. (5) Conclusion: The proposed framework was further operationalised into an ethics checklist for healthcare professionals that aims to help them anticipate and address ethical concerns that may arise when attending to pregnant cancer patients. Further studies exploring clinicians' attitudes towards cancer treatment in the course of pregnancy and patient experiences when diagnosed with cancer while pregnant and wider stakeholder engagement are needed to inform the development of further ethical, patient-centred guidance.

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Obtaining written informed consent from participants before enrolment in a study is essential. A previous study showed that only 50% of the participants in clinical trials understood the components of informed consent, and the methods of participants' understanding of informed consent were controversial. This updated meta-analysis aimed to estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand the different informed consent components. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched till April 2023. Therapeutic misconception, ability to name one risk, knowing that treatments were being compared, and understanding the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, the risks and side-effects, the direct benefits, placebo, randomization, voluntariness, freedom to withdraw, the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn from the trial, confidentiality, compensation, or comprehension were evaluated. This meta-analysis included 117 studies (155 datasets; 22,118 participants). The understanding of the risks and side-effects was investigated in the largest number of studies (n = 100), whereas comparehension was investigated in the smallest number (n = 11). The highest proportions were 97.5%(95% confidence interval (CI): 97.1-97.9) for confidentiality, 95.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.4-96.4) for compensation, 91.4% (95% CI: 90.7-92.1) for the nature of study, 68.1% (95% CI: 51.6-84.6) for knowing that treatments were being compared, and 67.3% (95% CI: 56.6-78) for voluntary nature of participants. The smallest proportions were the concept of placebo (4.8%, 95%CI: 4.4-5.2) and randomization(39.4%, 95%CI: 38.3-40.4). Our findings suggested that most participants understood the fundamental components of informed consent (study confidentiality, nature, compensation, voluntariness, and freedom to withdraw). The understanding of other components, such as placebo and randomization was less satisfactory.

Motivations and demographic differences in pregnant individuals in the decision to participate in research

PURPOSE

Although many patients agree to participate in research studies, many decline. The decision of whether or not to participate is especially complex in pregnant individuals as they may be concerned about both themselves and the fetus. We sought to understand patient reasoning for and demographic associations with participation in a trial surrounding the utility of epidural preservative-free morphine after successful vaginal delivery.

METHODS

We conducted a survey-based study in which parturients were approached within 36 hr after delivery to complete a survey assessing reasons for why they participated or not in the original trial. The survey also included self-reported demographics. Survey responses were categorized as follows: active participation, passive participation, ambivalence, aversion, miscommunication, clinical difficulty, unwilling to receive placebo, and screening failures.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 47%. Having a bachelor's degree or higher was associated with participating in the study (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 3.64; P = 0.03). Race and ethnicity were not predictive of participation. Participants who self-identified as Black were more likely to select reasons of aversion for why they did not participate in the trial (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.00 to 6.75; P = 0.05). Seventy-three percent of participants who self-identified as Black and declined to participate selected aversion, compared with 31% of those who self-identified as non-Black. Additionally, 71% of participants who self-identified as Hispanic and declined to participate selected aversion, compared with 32% of those who self-identified as non-Hispanic.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings can help identify areas for improvement of participation of pregnant individuals in research studies. Demographic associations may influence participation and reasons for participation.

Informed consent practices in clinical research: present and future

Clinical research must balance the need for ambitious recruitment with protecting participants' autonomy; a requirement of which is informed consent. Despite efforts to improve the informed consent process, participants are seldom provided sufficient information regarding research, hindering their ability to make informed decisions. These issues are particularly pervasive among patients experiencing acute illness or neurological impairment, both of which may impede their capacity to provide consent. There is a critical need to understand the components, requirements, and methods of obtaining true informed consent to achieve the vast numbers required for meaningful research. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the tenets underlying informed consent in research, including the assessment of capacity to consent, considerations for patients unable to consent, when to seek consent from substitute decision-makers, and consent under special circumstances. Various methods for obtaining informed consent are addressed, along with strategies for balancing recruitment and consent.

Women's and midwives' views on the optimum process for informed consent for research in a feasibility study involving an intrapartum intervention: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to intrapartum research is complex. Women are expected to understand unfamiliar terminology and assess potential harm versus benefit to their baby and themselves, often when an urgent intervention is required. Time pressures of intrapartum interventions are a major challenge for recruitment discussions taking place during labour, with research midwives expected to present, discuss and answer questions whilst maintaining equipoise. However, little is known about these interactions. An integrated qualitative study (IQS) was used to investigate information provision for women invited to participate in the Assist II feasibility study investigating the OdonAssist™-a novel device for use in assisted vaginal birth with an aim to generate a framework of good practice for information provision.

METHODS

Transcripts of in-depth interviews with women participants (n = 25), with recruiting midwives (n = 6) and recruitment discussions between midwives and women (n = 21), accepting or declining participation, were coded and interpreted using thematic analysis and content analysis to investigate what was helpful to women and what could be improved.

RESULTS

Recruiting women to intrapartum research is complicated by factors that impact on women's understanding and decision-making. Three key themes were derived from the data: (i) a woman-centred recruitment process, (ii) optimising the recruitment discussion and (iii) making a decision for two.

CONCLUSION

Despite evidence from the literature that women would like information provision and the research discussion to take place in the antenatal period, intrapartum studies still vary in the recruitment processes they offer women. Particularly concerning is that some women are given information for the first time whilst in labour, when they are known to feel particularly vulnerable, and contextual factors may influence decision-making; therefore, we propose a framework for good practice for information provision for research involving interventions initiated in the intrapartum period as a woman centred, and acceptable model of recruitment, which addresses the concerns of women and midwives and facilitates fair inclusion into intrapartum trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN. This qualitative research was undertaken as part of the ASSIST II Trial (trial registration number: ISRCTN38829082. Prospectively registered on 26/06/2019).

The acceptability and feasibility of a randomised trial exploring approaches to managing impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean section: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Caesarean sections (CS) account for 26% of all births in the UK, of which at least 5% are done at full dilatation, in the second stage of labour. Second stage CS may be complicated by the fetal head being deeply impacted in the maternal pelvis, requiring specialist skills to achieve a safe birth. Numerous techniques are used to manage impacted fetal head, however, there are no national clinical guidelines in the UK.

AIM

To explore health professionals' and women's views on the acceptability and feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to explore approaches to managing an impacted fetal head during emergency CS.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 10 obstetricians and 16 women (6 pregnant and 10 who experienced an emergency second stage CS). Interviews were transcribed and analysed using systematic thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The findings considered the time at which you obtain consent, how and when information about the RCT is presented, and barriers and facilitators to recruiting health professionals and women into the RCT. Obstetricians emphasised the importance of training in the techniques, as well as the potential conflict between the RCT protocol and current site or individual practices. Women said they would trust health professionals' to use the most appropriate technique and abandon the RCT protocol if necessary. Similarly, obstetricians raised the tension between the RCT protocol versus safety in reverting to what they knew under emergency situations. Both groups reflected on how this might affect the authenticity of the results. A range of important maternal, infant and clinical outcomes were raised by women and obstetricians. However, there were varying views on which of the two RCT designs presented to participants would be preferred. Most participants thought the RCT would be feasible and acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests an RCT designed to evaluate different techniques for managing an impacted fetal head would be feasible and acceptable. However, it also identified a number of challenges that need to be considered when designing such an RCT. Results can be used to inform the design of RCTs in this area.

Factors which influence ethnic minority women's participation in maternity research: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

Women from Black, Asian and mixed ethnicity backgrounds in the UK experience higher rates of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, and report poorer experiences of maternity care. Research is required to understand how to reduce these disparities, however, it is acknowledged these groups of women are under-represented in clinical research.

AIM

To investigate factors which influence participation in maternity research for women from an ethnic minority background.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to examine influencing factors for research participation. MEDLINE/CINHAL/PsycInfo/EMBASE databases were systematically searched in March 2021 and updated in March 2022. Papers were eligible if they explored maternal research participation and identified a woman's ethnicity in the results. No restrictions were placed on methodology. A convergent integrated approach was used to synthesise findings.

FINDINGS

A total of 14 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results were divided into eight overarching themes. A personalised approach to recruitment and incorporating culturally sensitive communication and considerations enhanced research participation. Distrust around sharing data, a perception of risk to research participation, and research lacking in personal relevance adversely affected the decision to participate. Large variation existed in the quality of the studies reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of a woman's culture and background in the design and the delivery of a maternity research study may facilitate participation, particularly when sampling from a specific population. Further research, informed by women from ethnic minority backgrounds is warranted to develop women-centred recommendations for conducting inclusive maternity research. Prospero registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42021261686.

Emesis in pregnancy - a qualitative study on trial recruitment failure from the EMPOWER internal pilot

BACKGROUND

As part of the internal pilot of the EMPOWER trial investigating the second-line antiemetic therapies in severe emesis in pregnancy ( https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16924692 ), a qualitative study of women's views was carried out, to improve our understanding of why women did, or did not, consent to participation in the trial. Interviews were also conducted with site research staff, to broaden our analysis and explore other factors affecting recruitment.

METHODS

The sample comprised women who accepted or declined trial participation (n=21) and site research staff (n=22). A structured topic guide was used, in four email interviews and 17 telephone interviews with women, and semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with staff. Of the women interviewed, seven had declined trial participation, and of the staff interviewed, 16 were research midwives/research nurses and six were principal investigators. All transcripts were checked for accuracy, anonymised and entered into NVIVO12 for indexing and retrieval. Data was analysed using a reflexive thematic analytic approach. In total, 72 codes were generated from the thematic analysis, and 36 from each sample group.

RESULTS

Three key themes based on all the interviews were (a) the diversity of recruitment pathways and boundaries of care, (b) the impact of trial complexity on recruitment and staff morale and (c) the ethics of caring for a patient with emesis. Ethical issues discussed included the use of double dummy and time to treat, particularly those suffering severely from the effects of nausea and vomiting. To illustrate these themes, staff perspectives are given more prominence.

CONCLUSIONS

The main reason the trial was stopped related to the high proportion of women ineligible for recruitment due to prior treatment with study drug(s) because of unanticipated changes in clinical practice. The qualitative results also demonstrate the impact of the trial on women and staff and highlight how the diversity of referral pathways, boundaries of care and the complexity of the trial and protocol resulted in additional barriers to successful trial recruitment. Qualitative work in pilot and feasibility studies of a clinical trial is recommended, to evaluate whether recruitment strategies remain viable in unanticipated contexts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number ISRCTN16924692 . Date: 08/01/2018.

Decision making in a clinical trial for a life-threatening illness: Therapeutic expectation, not misconception

Potential participants for clinical trials which aim to define treatments for life-threatening conditions are often extremely unwell. When exploring why individuals participate in clinical trials one common observation is a misplaced expectation of personal benefit - a therapeutic misconception. The care offered in some clinical trials is of a higher standard than is routinely available and this has led to criticism around the freedom of choice to enrol - structural coercion. We embedded an ethnographic study within a randomised controlled trial for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Gaborone, Botswana and Kampala, Uganda. We aimed to gain an understanding of decision-making around the trial and how this was impacted by the study design and broader social context. We conducted in-depth interviews with trial participants, surrogate decision makers and researchers, combined these with direct observations and analysed data using thematic analysis. Between January 2020 and June 2021 we interviewed 89 individuals. We found previous exposure to and awareness of clinical research was limited, as was understanding of the trial objectives and design. Through observations and engagement with healthcare facilities decision-makers were able to identify the trial as providing the best possible chance of survival. Hesitation and reluctance were mostly due to fear of lumbar punctures which was sometimes based on rumours but often based on tragic personal experience. Despite fear, and sometimes conviction that they would die, individuals agreed to consent, often against the wishes of family members. Reassurance and confidence came from trust in routine care staff and the research team but also from fellow participants and their surrogates. We argue that participants made informed decisions based on a therapeutic expectation from the trial and that rather than being the result of structural coercion this was an informed and voluntary choice.

Participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of metformin in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM): pregnant women's perceptions and experiences of the decision-making process

Background: Research in pregnancy and childbirth is required to advance healthcare needs for this population. Fears around potential fetal risk and the history of drug scandals renders it an area of research that is somewhat neglected. Due to the growing medical complexities facing pregnant women, efforts have been made in recent times to recognise the ethical importance of including this population in clinical research. Although clinical trials are becoming more common in pregnancy, recruitment of this population remains difficult with a common assumption that pregnant women would be reluctant to participate in clinical trials. This study set out to explore pregnant women's perspectives and experiences of the decision-making process to participate in a randomised controlled trial of metformin in gestational diabetes mellitus (the EMERGE clinical trial). Methods: This study employed a qualitative descriptive design with thematic analysis. Data were collected by conducting individual semi-structured interviews (n=11) with participants (n=9) and decliners (n=2) of the EMERGE clinical trial.  Results: The main findings reveal that a significant perception of personal benefit from participation was the biggest influence on women's decisions to participate. Concerns about the impact of gestational diabetes on their pregnancies, the option of a favourable intervention treatment, a low perception of risk associated with the trial and the opportunity to help medical research appeared to have significantly influenced their decision. Receiving detailed information, personal interactions with the study team, a perception of voluntariness in participation and accessibility of the trial positively impacted on women's decisions to participate.  Conclusions: Personal contact during recruitment, presenting clear and thorough trial information, providing previous participant testimonials, and facilitating women to participate in clinical trials are all important strategies when trying to enhance recruitment in pregnancy trials. Further research on pregnant women declining participation in clinical trials is needed.

The Lived Experience Of Participants in an African RandomiseD trial (LEOPARD): protocol for an in-depth qualitative study within a multisite randomised controlled trial for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis

INTRODUCTION

Individuals recruited into clinical trials for life-threatening illnesses are particularly vulnerable. This is especially true in low-income settings. The decision to enrol may be influenced by existing inequalities, poor healthcare infrastructure and fear of death. Where patients are confused or unconscious the responsibility for this decision falls to relatives. This qualitative study is nested in the ongoing AMBIsome Therapy Induction OptimisatioN (AMBITION) Trial. AMBITION is recruiting participants from five countries in sub-Saharan Africa and is trialling a novel treatment approach for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis, an infection known to affect brain function. We aim to learn from the experiences of participants, relatives and researchers involved in AMBITION.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will collect data through in-depth interviews with trial participants and the next of kin of participants who were confused at enrolment and therefore provided surrogate consent. Data will be collected in Gaborone, Botswana; Kampala, Uganda and Harare, Zimbabwe. Interviews will follow a narrative approach including participatory drawing of participation timelines. This will be supplemented by direct observation of the research process at each of the three recruiting hospitals. Interviews will also take place with researchers from the African and European institutions that form the partnership through which the trial is administered. Interviews will be transcribed verbatim, translated (if necessary) and organised thematically for narrative analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Health Research Development Committee, Gaborone (Reference: HPDME:13/18/1); Makerere School of Health Sciences Institutional Review Board, Kampala (Reference: 2019-061); University of Zimbabwe Joint Research Ethics Committee, Harare (Reference: 219/19), and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Reference: 17957). Study findings will be shared with research participants from the sites, key stakeholders at each research institution and ministries of health to help inform the development and implementation of future trials. The findings of this study will be published in journals and presented at academic meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov:NCT04296292.

The Food, Feelings, and Family Study: comparison of the efficacy of traditional methods, social media, and broadcast email to recruit pregnant women to an observational, longitudinal nutrition study

Background

It is well known that recruitment is a challenging aspect of any study involving human subjects. This challenge is exacerbated when the population sought is reticent to participate in research as is the case with pregnant women and individuals with depression. This paper compares recruitment methods used for the Food, Feelings, and Family Study, an observational, longitudinal pilot study concerning how diet and bisphenol A exposure affect maternal mood and cognitive function during and after pregnancy.

Methods

Pregnant women were recruited to this study over a period of 15 months using traditional methods, social media including paid and unpaid posts, and emails broadcast to the university community. Contingency analysis using the Pearson’s Chi-square test was used to determine if recruitment method was associated with likelihood of participation. T-tests were used to analyze Facebook advertisement success. ANOVAs and Fisher exact tests were used to determine if recruitment method was related to continuous and categorical demographics, respectively.

Results

Social media resulted in the largest number of recruits, followed by traditional methods and broadcast email. Women recruited through social media were less likely to participate. In contrast, use of broadcast email resulted in a smaller pool of recruits but these recruits were more likely to be eligible for and complete the study. Most women recruited via social media were the result of unpaid posts to the study’s Facebook page. Paid posts lasting at least 4 days were the most successful. Recruitment method was not associated with participant demographics.

Conclusions

Social media has the potential to recruit a large pool of potential subjects; however, when studies require a large time investment such as the case here, women recruited through social media are less likely to participate and complete the study than women recruited through other means.

Trial registration

N/A. This study does not describe a health care intervention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03680-1.

Perspectives of pregnant and breastfeeding women on longitudinal clinical studies that require non-invasive biospecimen collection - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Investigation of the microbiome during early life has stimulated an increasing number of cohort studies in pregnant and breastfeeding women that require non-invasive biospecimen collection. The objective of this study was to explore pregnant and breastfeeding women's perspectives on longitudinal clinical studies that require non-invasive biospecimen collection and how they relate to study logistics and research participation.

METHODS

We completed in-depth semi-structured interviews with 40 women who were either pregnant (n = 20) or breastfeeding (n = 20) to identify their understanding of longitudinal clinical research, the motivations and barriers to their participation in such research, and their preferences for providing non-invasive biospecimen samples.

RESULTS

Perspectives on research participation were focused on breastfeeding and perinatal education. Participants cited direct benefits of research participation that included flexible childcare, lactation support, and incentives and compensation. Healthcare providers, physician offices, and social media were cited as credible sources and channels for recruitment. Participants viewed lengthy study visits and child protection as the primary barriers to research participation. The barriers to biospecimen collection were centered on stool sampling, inadequate instructions, and drop-off convenience.

CONCLUSION

Women in this study were interested in participating in clinical studies that require non-invasive biospecimen collection, and motivations to participate center on breastfeeding and the potential to make a scientific contribution that helps others. Effectively recruiting pregnant or breastfeeding participants for longitudinal microbiome studies requires protocols that account for participant interests and consideration for their time.

Cancer During Pregnancy: How to Handle the Bioethical Dilemmas?-A Scoping Review With Paradigmatic Cases-Based Analysis

Ethical issues that arise during the care of a pregnant woman with cancer are challenging to physicians, policymakers, lawyers, and the bioethics community. The main purpose of this scoping review is to summarize existing literature regarding the bioethical dilemmas when a conflict arises in the maternal-fetus dyad, like the one related to cancer and pregnancy outcomes. Moreover, we illustrate the decision-making process of real-life case reports. Published data were searched through the PubMed and Google Scholar databases, as well as in grey literature, using appropriate controlled keywords in English and Portuguese. After identification, screening, eligibility and data extraction from the articles, a total of 50 was selected. There are several established ethical frameworks for conflict resolution and decision-making. Pragmatic theoretical approaches include case-based analysis, the ethics of care, feminist theory, and traditional ethical principlism that scrutinizes the framework of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. In addition, society and practitioner values could mediate this complex ethical interplay. The physician must balance autonomy and beneficence-based obligations to the pregnant woman with cancer, along with beneficence-based obligations to the fetus. Ethical challenges have received less attention in the literature, particularly before the third trimester of pregnancy. Best, unbiased and balanced information must be granted both to the patient and to the family, regarding the benefits and harms for the woman herself as well as for the fetal outcome. Based on a previously validated method for analyzing and working up clinical ethical problems, we suggest an adaptation of an algorithm for biomedical decision-making in cancer during pregnancy, including recommendations that can facilitate counseling and help reduce the suffering of the patient and her family.

A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context?

Background

Effective risk communication is challenging. Ensuring potential trial participants’ understand ‘risk’ information presented to them is a key aspect of the informed consent process within clinical trials, yet minimal research has looked specifically at how to communicate probabilities to support decisions about trial participation. This study reports a systematic review of the literature focusing on presentation of probabilistic information or understanding of risk by potential trial participants.

Methods

A search strategy for risk communication in clinical trials was designed and informed by systematic reviews of risk communication in treatment and screening contexts and supplemented with trial participation terms. Extracted data included study characteristics and the main interventions/findings of each study. Explanatory studies that investigated the methods for presenting probabilistic information within participant information leaflets for a clinical trial were included, as were interventions that focused on optimising understanding of probabilistic information within the context of a clinical trial.

Results

The search strategy identified a total of 4931 studies. Nineteen papers were selected for full text screening, and seven studies included. All reported results from risk communication studies that aimed to support potential trial participants’ decision making set within hypothetical trials. Five of these were randomised comparisons of risk communication interventions, and two were prospectively designed, non-randomised studies. Study interventions focused on probability presentation, risk framing and risk interpretation with a wide variety of interventions being evaluated and considerable heterogeneity in terms of outcomes assessed. Studies show conflicting findings when it comes to how best to present information, although numerical, particularly frequency formats and some visual aids appear to have promise.

Conclusions

The evidence base surrounding risk communication in clinical trials indicates that there is as yet no clear optimal method for improving participant understanding, or clear consensus on how it affects their willingness to participate. Further research into risk communication within trials is needed to help illuminate the mechanisms underlying risk perception and understanding and provide appropriate ways to present and communicate risk in a trial context so as to further promote informed choices about participation. A key focus for future research should be to investigate the potential for learning in the evidence on risk communication from treatment and screening decisions when applied to decisions about trial participation.

Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.

Self-Interested and Altruistic Motivations in Volunteering for Clinical Trials: A More Complex Relationship

Empirical studies have found that altruism and self-interest are the two primary motivations for enrollment in clinical trials. Some studies have shown that in some cases these two motivations are contingent upon each other, which complicates our understanding of motivation. In this study, we interviewed 27 people with Parkinson's disease about their willingness to enroll in a hypothetical clinical trial. Through inductive, grounded theory analysis of the interview transcripts, we find four different contingent relationships between altruism and self-interest. It is important for ethicists to be aware of these more complex motivations because some are ethically problematic and others not. Moreover, practitioners need to be aware of these contingent relationships so that they can understand the motivations of the research participants.

A qualitative study of the factors influencing recruitment to a pilot trial on the prevention of striae gravidarum

Background

Striae gravidarum are a common occurrence in pregnancy and many women use a topical product to prevent their development or lessen their appearance if they do develop. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of many of the products used by women. This study arose from challenges in recruitment to a pilot randomised trial (ISRCTN trial registration number:76992326) designed to evaluate the feasibility of a definitive trial to compare a moisturising oil to no treatment in the prevention and reduction in severity of striae gravidarum. The study reported here explored the factors influencing recruitment to that pilot trial.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken involving primigravid women attending an Irish maternity hospital. Data were collected by semi-structured telephone interviews over a four-week period and analysed using the framework method of analysis. Fifteen interview transcripts were included in the analysis.

Results

Four main themes consisting of twelve categories were identified from the interview data. The themes focused on women’s prevention of stretch marks and their choice of anti-stretch mark product, who and what influenced that choice and influences on trial participation. In relation to influences on trial participation, the possibility of being randomised to the non- intervention or control group was a deterrent for many women.

Conclusions

The prevention of stretch marks is important to pregnant women, as is their choice of product to prevent them. Offering women the opportunity to be part of a trial that would be of low burden and would test a well-known product may optimise recruitment. However, reluctance to be randomised because of the possibility of being allocated to the non-intervention control group suggests that further work is needed in this field on how best to communicate uncertainty to potential participants.

Exploring broad consent in the context of the 100,000 Genomes Project: a mixed methods study

The 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP)-a hybrid clinical-research initiative-was set up to analyse whole-genome sequences (WGS) from patients living with a rare disease or cancer. The project positioned participant consent as being of central importance, but consent in the context of genomic testing raises challenging issues. In this mixed method study, we surveyed 1337 100kGP participants regarding their experiences of taking part in the project and conducted in-depth interviews with 24 survey respondents to explore these findings further. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data were analysed thematically. The consent approach of the 100kGP resulted in a proportion of our study's participants not understanding the complexities of the project and what types of results they might receive; for example, 20% of participants who we surveyed from the cancer arm did not recall what decisions they had made regarding additional findings. It is not surprising that a project such as this, with such diverse aims and participant groups, would throw up at least some challenges. However, participants reported being satisfied with their experience of the project to date. Our study highlights that in the context of consent for more complex endeavours, such as the 100kGP, it is important to assess (and document) an agreement to take part, but complicated decisions about what and when to communicate may need revisiting over time in response to changing contexts. We discuss the implications of our findings with reference to participants of the 100kGP and the newly formed NHS Genomic Medicine Service.

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.

An exploration of women's experience of taking part in a randomized controlled trial of a diagnostic test during pregnancy: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore pregnant women's views of participation in a clinical research trial while pregnant.

DESIGN

Prospective nested qualitative cohort study embedded within a national, multi-site randomized controlled trial of a diagnostic test for preeclampsia: Placental Growth Factor. One-to-one in-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 19 women who had recently participated in the trial at a single recruiting site. The interviews were conducted in private, recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim.

SETTING

Single tertiary maternity hospital currently recruiting eligible women onto an on-going randomized controlled trial (NCT02881073).

PARTICIPANTS

Women who had participated in the PARROT Ireland randomized controlled trial during their recent pregnancy.

METHODS

Thematic analysis was utilized. Each line of the transcribed interviews was coded into a category by two researchers. The resultant categories were reviewed, and those with similarities were pooled allowing the development of themes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Women's opinions and experience of participation in a randomized controlled trial of an interventional diagnostic test during their pregnancy.

RESULTS

Four major themes were identified as follows: (a) Understanding of preeclampsia, (b) Motivators for clinical trial participation, (c) Barriers to decision making and (d) Influence of PARROT Ireland on pregnancy experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Women are generally interested and positively inclined to participate in research during pregnancy. The potential of risk is an important consideration for eligible pregnant woman. Information and support by both researchers and clinicians are paramount in aiding women's understanding of a research trial.

Reasons for accepting or declining participation in the ASPRE trial: A qualitative study with women at high risk of preterm pre-eclampsia

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that affected the decision of pregnant women at high risk for pre-eclampsia (PE) in accepting or declining participation in a medicated clinical trial (ASPRE) for the prevention of preterm PE.

METHOD

This was a qualitative, cross-sectional study. A purposive sample of 14 participants and 13 decliners of the ASPRE trial were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using template analysis.

RESULTS

For participants, their high-risk status seems to have motivated them to take part in the trial. This was enabled by their perception that the trial drug aspirin was commonly used, the safety of the procedure, and the belief that they will be in receipt of extra monitoring in pregnancy. Decliners expressed discomfort about taking medications in pregnancy, and about the presence of the placebo arm; they seemed to be motivated by desire to reduce harm. Satisfaction with the information provided by the medical professionals was also influential in women's decision making, and so were the views of their partners and other trusted individuals.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women's motivation to take part or to decline participation in a medicated trail can be understood as an attempt to cope with the threat posed by their high-risk status.

Challenges in Designing Clinical Trials to Test New Drugs in the Pregnant Woman and Fetus

The need for new drugs in pregnancy is widely recognized. This review identifies several unique challenges and describes some solutions. Specific studies and drug development programs need careful planning that accounts for the needs of regulatory agencies. The perinatal (obstetric/pediatric) community needs to establish collaborations to develop methodologies, to facilitate data sharing, and to lobby for research and access to medicines. There is a need to gather and present information that promotes proportionate judgments of the balance between potential benefits and risks. This will require researchers to look beyond their traditional ways of working.

Reasons given by pregnant women for participating in a clinical trial aimed at preventing premature delivery: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials, pregnant women are potentially vulnerable, and the fetus is exposed to the intervention. This study aimed to identify the reasons that led pregnant women at a high risk of premature delivery to participate in a randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

The women participating in the main trial were contacted by telephone postpartum and invited to answer an open questionnaire in a cross-sectional study. Data were collected by telephone and analyzed using thematic analysis. After the analysis categories were defined, all the answers were reviewed, categorized and grouped. A descriptive summary of the content of each category was then made.

RESULTS

Overall, 208 women from different geographical regions of the country agreed to participate. Four categories were identified: 1) The risk of losing the baby; 2) A previous experience of premature delivery; 3) The role of the doctor and other health professionals, and 4) The availability of quality medical care and free medication. The main reason given for agreeing to participate was to reduce the risks associated with the baby being born prematurely, particularly when the woman herself or someone close to her had already experienced premature delivery. Other reasons were having received clear guidance and explanations from the doctor regarding prematurity and about the study and being given the opportunity to receive free treatment with greater access to the public healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to participate in a clinical trial is not easy, particularly when the individual is vulnerable and in a critical situation as in the case of a pregnant woman at a high risk of delivering prematurely. Fears and uncertainties regarding the pregnancy outcome, as well as the woman's previous experiences and her awareness of the actual risks she faces will affect her decision regarding whether or not to participate. Recruitment challenges could be overcome by ensuring that the research team provides adequate information and support, thus creating a bond with participants that would foster a sense of safety and trust in the study proposals.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Improving recruitment to clinical trials during pregnancy: A mixed methods investigation

OBJECTIVE

To identify reasons underlying women's refusal to participate in a pregnancy trial and to identify ways of increasing recruitment.

DESIGN

Mixed methods study using a questionnaire and qualitative interviews.

SAMPLE

A questionnaire asking them to indicate reasons for their decision was completed by 296 pregnant women who declined to participate in one of two trials of nutritional supplementation in a large teaching hospital in southern England. Qualitative interview data were collected from two samples of pregnant women: 1) 30 women who declined to participate in a trial but completed the questionnaire; and 2) 44 women who participated in a trial.

RESULTS

Questionnaire data from pregnant women who declined to participate suggested the major barriers to participation were study requirements, including taking study medication, having a bone scan or blood tests, or being too busy. Thematic analysis of interview data identified differences in self-efficacy and levels of trust in medical research between participants and decliners. Participants believed that the research would cause no harm, while decliners felt they or their unborn child would be at risk. When faced with potential obstacles, participants found ways around them while decliners felt they were insurmountable.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment methods for pregnancy trials should focus on building women's trust in the trial, and on enhancing women's self-efficacy so they feel able to meet trial requirements. Suggestions for building trust include investing time in open, honest discussion of the risks and benefits of participation, improving visibility of the research team, testimonials from previous participants and advertising study safety and ethical conduct. Self-efficacy can be enhanced by training research staff in empowering styles of communication enabling women to feel heard and supported to problem-solve. These strategies could be implemented relatively easily into pregnancy trial protocols, and their effectiveness tested through their impact on recruitment rates.

Detailed systematic analysis of recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials in patients with an unscheduled admission to hospital

OBJECTIVES

To examine the design and findings of recruitment studies in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with an unscheduled hospital admission (UHA), to consider how to optimise recruitment in future RCTs of this nature.

DESIGN

Studies within the ORRCA database (Online Resource for Recruitment Research in Clinical TriAls; www.orrca.org.uk) that reported on recruitment to RCTs involving UHAs in patients >18 years were included. Extracted data included trial clinical details, and the rationale and main findings of the recruitment study.

RESULTS

Of 3114 articles populating ORRCA, 39 recruitment studies were eligible, focusing on 68 real and 13 hypothetical host RCTs. Four studies were prospectively planned investigations of recruitment interventions, one of which was a nested RCT. Most recruitment papers were reports of recruitment experiences from one or more 'real' RCTs (n=24) or studies using hypothetical RCTs (n=11). Rationales for conducting recruitment studies included limited time for informed consent (IC) and patients being too unwell to provide IC. Methods to optimise recruitment included providing patients with trial information in the prehospital setting, technology to allow recruiters to cover multiple sites, screening logs to uncover recruitment barriers, and verbal rather than written information and consent.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of high-quality research into recruitment in RCTs involving UHAs with only one nested randomised study evaluating a recruitment intervention. Among the remaining studies, methods to optimise recruitment focused on how to improve information provision in the prehospital setting and use of screening logs. Future research in this setting should focus on the prospective evaluation of the well-developed interventions to optimise recruitment.

'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/ .

Written versus verbal consent: a qualitative study of stakeholder views of consent procedures used at the time of recruitment into a peripartum trial conducted in an emergency setting

Background

Obtaining prospective written consent from women to participate in trials when they are experiencing an obstetric emergency is challenging. Alternative consent pathways, such as gaining verbal consent at enrolment followed, later, by obtaining written consent, have been advocated by some clinicians and bioethicists but have received little empirical attention. We explored women’s and staff views about the consent procedures used during the internal pilot of a trial (GOT-IT), where the protocol permitted staff to gain verbal consent at recruitment.

Methods

Interviews with staff (n = 27) and participating women (n = 22). Data were analysed thematically and interviews were cross-compared to identify differences and similarities in participants’ views about the consent procedures used.

Results

Women and some staff highlighted benefits to obtaining verbal consent at trial enrolment, including expediting recruitment and reducing the burden on those left exhausted by their births. However, most staff with direct responsibility for taking consent expressed extreme reluctance to proceed with enrolment until they had obtained written consent, despite being comfortable using verbal procedures in their clinical practice. To account for this resistance, staff drew a strong distinction between research and clinical care and suggested that a higher level of consent was needed when recruiting into trials. In doing so, staff emphasised the need to engage women in reflexive decision-making and highlighted the role that completing the consent form could play in enabling and evidencing this process. While most staff cited their ethical responsibilities to women, they also voiced concerns that the absence of a signed consent form at recruitment could expose them to greater risk of litigation were an individual to experience a complication during the trial. Inexperience of recruiting into peripartum trials and limited availability of staff trained to take consent also reinforced preferences for obtaining written consent at recruitment.

Conclusions

While alternative consent pathways have an important role to play in advancing emergency medicine research, and may be appreciated by potential recruits, they may give rise to unintended ethical and logistical challenges for staff. Staff would benefit from training and support to increase their confidence and willingness to recruit into trials using alternative consent pathways.

Trial Registration

This qualitative research was undertaken as part of the GOT-IT Trial (trial registration number: ISCRTN 88609453). Date of registration 26/03/2014.

A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research

BACKGROUND

There is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Three themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals' individual perception of risk may influence recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women.

Why do pregnant women participate in research? A patient participation investigation using Q-Methodology

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in study design is paramount to design studies that are acceptable to patients. Despite an increase in research involving pregnant women, relatively little is known about the motivational factors that govern their decision to be involved in a clinical trial, compared to other patient groups.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the viewpoints of pregnant women who take part in clinical trials.

METHOD

We chose to use Q-Methodology, a method of exploring the structure of opinions surrounding a topic. We developed a set of 40 statements that encompassed the reasons why pregnant women might want to take part in research and 30 research participants from the PRiDE study (an observational trial investigating the role of micronutrients in gestational diabetes) were asked to rank them in order of agreement. The finished matrices from each participant were compared and analysed to produce capturing viewpoints.

RESULTS

About 30 women aged 19-40 involved in the PRiDE study completed the questionnaire. There were two overarching motivators that emerged: a willingness to help medical research and improve our knowledge of medical science, and having a personal connection to the disease, therefore a potential fear of being affected by it. A third, less significant viewpoint, was that of a lack of inconvenience being a motivating factor.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Understanding what motivates pregnant women to decide to take part in a research study is valuable and helps researchers maximize their uptake and retention rates when designing a trial involving pregnant women.

Amnioinfusion for women with a singleton breech presentation and a previous failed external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Our trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of amnioinfusion for a second attempt at external cephalic version (ECV).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This open randomized controlled trial was planned with a sequential design. Women at a term ≥36 weeks of gestation with a singleton fetus in breech presentation and a first unsuccessful ECV were recruited in two level-3 maternity units. They were randomly allocated to transabdominal amnioinfusion with a 500-mL saline solution under ultrasound surveillance or no amnioinfusion before the second ECV attempt. Trained senior obstetricians performed all procedures. The primary outcome was the cephalic presentation rate at delivery. Analyses were conducted according to intention to treat (NCT00465712).

RESULT

Recruitment difficulties led to stopping the trial after a 57-month period, 119 women were randomized: 59 allocated to amnioinfusion + ECV and 60 to ECV only. Data were analyzed without applying the sequential feature of the design. The rate of cephalic presentation at delivery did not differ significantly according to whether the second version attempt was or was not preceded by amnioinfusion (20 versus 12%, p = .20). Premature rupture of the membranes occurred for 15% of the women in the amnioinfusion group.

CONCLUSION

Amnioinfusion before a second attempt to external version does not significantly increase the rate of cephalic presentation at delivery.

Recruiting and consenting into a peripartum trial in an emergency setting: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of women and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Recruiting and consenting women to peripartum trials can be challenging as the women concerned may be anxious, in pain, and exhausted; there may also be limited time for discussion and decision-making to occur. To address these potential difficulties, we undertook a qualitative evaluation of the internal pilot of a trial (Got-it) involving women who had a retained placenta (RP). We explored the experiences and views of women and staff about the information and consent pathway used within the pilot, in order to provide recommendations for use in future peripartum trials involving recruitment in emergency situations.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were undertaken with staff (n = 27) and participating women (n = 22). Interviews were analysed thematically. The accounts of women and staff were compared to identify differences and similarities in their views about recruitment and consent procedures.

RESULTS

Women and staff regarded recruitment as having been straightforward and facilitated by the use of simplified (verbal and written) summaries of trial information. Both parties, however, conveyed discordant views about whether fully informed consent had been obtained. These differences in perspectives appeared to arise from the different factors and considerations impinging on women and staff at the time of recruitment. While staff placed emphasis on promoting understanding in the emergency situation of RP by imparting information in clear and succinct ways, women highlighted the experiential realities of their pre- and post-birthing situations, and how these had led to quick decisions being made without full engagement with the potential risks of trial participation. To facilitate informed consent, women suggested that trial information should be given during the antenatal period, and, in doing so, articulated a rights-based discourse. Staff, however, voiced opposition to this approach by emphasising a duty of care to all pregnant women, and raising concerns about causing undue distress to the majority of individuals who would not subsequently develop a RP.

CONCLUSIONS

By drawing upon the perspectives of women and staff involved in the same trial we have shown that they may operate within different experiential and ethical paradigms. In doing so, we argue for the potential benefits of drawing upon multiple perspectives when developing information and consent pathways used in future (peripartum) trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISCRTN 88609453 .

Ethics and social acceptability of a proposed clinical trial using maternal gene therapy to treat severe early-onset fetal growth restriction

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the ethical and social acceptability of a proposed clinical trial using maternal uterine artery vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene therapy to treat severe early-onset fetal growth restriction (FGR) in pregnant women.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review on the ethics and legality of experimental treatments in pregnant women, in particular advanced therapeutics. Issues that were identified from the literature helped develop interview guides for semistructured, qualitative interviews, carried out in four European countries, with 34 key stakeholders (disability groups, professional bodies and patient support groups) and 24 women/couples who had experienced a pregnancy affected by severe early-onset FGR.

RESULTS

The literature review identified two main questions: 'is it ethical to give a pregnant woman a potentially risky treatment from which she does not benefit directly?' and 'is it ethical to treat a condition of the unborn child, who may then be born with a serious disability when, without treatment, they would have died?'. The review concluded that there were no ethical or legal objections to the intervention, or to a trial of this intervention. Overall, respondents viewed the proposed trial in positive terms. Women were generally interested in participating in clinical trials that conferred a potential benefit to their unborn child. The risk of disability of the premature child was a concern, but not considered a major stumbling block for maternal VEGF gene therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not identify any fundamental or insurmountable objections to a trial of maternal gene therapy for severe early-onset FGR. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Vulnerability, therapeutic misconception and informed consent: is there a need for special treatment of pregnant women in fetus-regarding clinical trials?

Historically, pregnant women have generally been excluded from clinical trials. One of the reasons for this exclusion has been the belief that pregnant women are vulnerable as research participants. Although this view has now largely fallen into disfavour, this article argues that in the situation where the pregnant woman is newly diagnosed with a fetal condition for which the only option, other than watchful waiting, is enrolment in a clinical trial, she should be considered a cognitively and medically vulnerable research participant. This is because she is in a highly stressed emotional state and so less able to decide completely freely whether or not to participate in the clinical trial. In other words, she is under a higher risk of therapeutic misconception and of not understanding what she is consenting to. This article suggests that in order for the consent of these women to be given freely and without emotional pressure, it has to be ensured that strategies are developed to ensure they are fully informed and actually understand the information. This surpasses the requirements of the English law of informed consent and also of General Medical Council (GMC) guidance on consent to research but such an approach would help safeguard that, despite these women's poor bargaining position, their trial participation is really free, voluntary and informed.

Pregnant womens' concerns when invited to a randomized trial: a qualitative case control study

Background

Pregnant women were excluded from clinical trials until the 1990s, but the Food and Drug Administration nowadays allows - and even encourages - responsible inclusion of pregnant women in trials with adequate safety monitoring. Still, randomized trials in pregnant women face specific enrolment challenges. Previous studies have focused on barriers to trial participation in studies that had failed to recruit sufficient participants. Our aim was to identify barriers and motivators for participation in a range of clinical trials being conducted in the Netherlands, regardless of recruitment performance.

Methods

We performed a qualitative case control study in women who had been asked in 2010 to participate in one of eight clinical trials during pregnancy or shortly after giving birth. Both participants and non-participants of these clinical trials were invited for a face-to-face interview that addressed motives for participation and non-participation. We started the interview in an open fashion, asking the women for their main motive for participation or non-participation. When no new information emerged in this open part, we continued with a semi-structured interview, guided by a topic list. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using a constant-comparative approach. Two researchers identified barriers and facilitators for participation, conjoined into main themes.

Results

Of 28 women invited for the interview, 21 agreed to be interviewed (12 participants and 9 non-participants). For 5 of the 12 participants, contribution to scientific research was their main motive, while 5 had participated because the intervention seemed favorable and was not available outside the trial. Key motives for non-participation (n = 9) were a negative association or a dislike of the intervention, either because it might do harm (n = 6) or for practical reasons (n = 3). Combining the open and topic list guided interviews we constructed seven main themes that influence the pregnant women’s decision to participate: external influence, research and healthcare, perception own situation, study design, intervention, information and counselling, and uncertainty.

Conclusions

Among seven main themes that influence pregnant women’s decision to participate, uncertainty about scientific research or the intervention was reported to be of considerable importance. Measures should be taken to habituate pregnant women more to scientific research, and further evaluation of opt-out consent deserves attention.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0641-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble

In this article we draw on the concept of a social licence to explain public concern at the introduction of care.data, a recent English initiative designed to extract data from primary care medical records for commissioning and other purposes, including research. The concept of a social licence describes how the expectations of society regarding some activities may go beyond compliance with the requirements of formal regulation; those who do not fulfil the conditions for the social licence (even if formally compliant) may experience ongoing challenge and contestation. Previous work suggests that people's cooperation with specific research studies depends on their perceptions that their participation is voluntary and is governed by values of reciprocity, non-exploitation and service of the public good. When these conditions are not seen to obtain, threats to the social licence for research may emerge. We propose that care.data failed to adequately secure a social licence because of: (i) defects in the warrants of trust provided for care.data, (ii) the implied rupture in the traditional role, expectations and duties of general practitioners, and (iii) uncertainty about the status of care.data as a public good. The concept of a social licence may be useful in explaining the specifics of care.data, and also in reinforcing the more general lesson for policy-makers that legal authority does not necessarily command social legitimacy.

Parents report positive experiences about enrolling babies in a cord-related clinical trial before birth

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate parents' perceptions when they were asked to enrol their unborn preterm infant in a randomised trial involving delayed cord clamping or cord milking.

METHODS

The parents of 58 infants were asked to take part in a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to provide feedback about how they felt about their infants being included in the research project. A total of 37 parents - 15 fathers and 22 mothers - agreed to take part.

RESULTS

Parents were generally positive about their experiences of their baby taking part in the trial, but the findings raised some concerns about the validity of the consent obtained before delivery, as it was given in a hurry, and some participants had difficulty remembering that they had agreed to take part. Four themes were identified from the interviews: implications of taking part, reasons for enrolling infants, experiences of recruitment and suggestions for improvement.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the parents were positive about their baby taking part in the trial, but the consent process could be improved, by providing information about relevant trials earlier in the pregnancy or implementing continuous consent at key points in the trial.

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand different components of informed consent.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar and by manually reviewing reference lists for publications up to October 2013. A meta-analysis of study results was performed using a random-effects model to take account of heterogeneity.

FINDINGS

The analysis included 103 studies evaluating 135 cohorts of participants. The pooled proportion of participants who understood components of informed consent was 75.8% for freedom to withdraw at any time, 74.7% for the nature of study, 74.7% for the voluntary nature of participation, 74.0% for potential benefits, 69.6% for the study's purpose, 67.0% for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% for confidentiality, 64.1% for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn, 62.9% for knowing that treatments were being compared, 53.3% for placebo and 52.1% for randomization. Most participants, 62.4%, had no therapeutic misconceptions and 54.9% could name at least one risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses identified covariates, such as age, educational level, critical illness, the study phase and location, that significantly affected understanding and indicated that the proportion of participants who understood informed consent had not increased over 30 years.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of participants in clinical trials who understood different components of informed consent varied from 52.1% to 75.8%. Investigators could do more to help participants achieve a complete understanding.

Uncovering the emotional aspects of working on a clinical trial: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of staff involved in a type 1 diabetes trial

Background

The perspectives and experiences of trial staff are increasingly being investigated as these can be used to improve recruitment, adherence to trial protocols and support given to future staff. We interviewed staff working on a type 1 diabetes trial in order to aid interpretation of trial findings, inform recommendations for the rollout of the treatments investigated and provide recommendations for the conduct of future trials. However, our interviews uncovered aspects of trial work erstwhile unrecognised or underreported in the trials literature, and it is these which form the focus of this paper.

Methods

In-depth interviews were conducted with (n = 18) staff, recruited from seven centres, who were involved in recruitment and trial delivery. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Alongside logistical and practical issues which made trial work challenging, staff often talked spontaneously and at length about how trial work had affected them emotionally. Staff not only described the emotional stresses arising from having to meet recruitment targets and from balancing research roles with clinical responsibilities, they also discussed having to emotionally manage patients and their colleagues. The emotional aspects of trial work particularly came to the fore when staff notified patients about their treatment allocation. On such occasions, staff described having to employ emotional strategies to pre-empt and manage potential patient disappointment and anger. Staff also described having to manage their own emotions when patients withdrew from the trial or were not randomised to the treatment arm which, in their clinical judgment, would have been in their best interests. To help address the emotional challenges they encountered, staff highlighted a need for more practical, emotional and specialist psychological support.

Conclusions

More attention should be paid to the emotional aspects of trial work to help ensure trial staff are adequately supported. Such support could comprise: increased training for staff to improve their own and patients’ understandings of randomization, role-play to develop techniques to manage patient anger and disappointment, sharing of good practice, formalised team support with psychological input and access to specialist psychological support to troubleshoot complex emotional and ethical issues.

Recruitment and retention of pregnant women into clinical research trials: an overview of challenges, facilitators, and best practices

Pregnant women are a vulnerable group who are needed in clinical research studies to advance prevention and treatment options for this population. Yet, pregnant women remain underrepresented in clinical research. Through the lens of the socioecological model, we highlight reported barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention of pregnant women in studies that sought their participation. We trace historical, policy-based reasons for the exclusion of pregnant women in clinical studies to present-day rationale for inclusion of this group. The findings highlight why it has been difficult to recruit and retain this population over time. A body of literature suggests that integrative sampling and recruitment methods that leverage the influence and reach of prenatal providers will overcome recruitment challenges. We argue that these strategies, in combination with building strong engagement with existing community-based organizations, will enable teams to more effectively promote and retain pregnant women in future longitudinal cohort studies.

You are how you recruit: a cohort and randomized controlled trial of recruitment strategies

Background

Recruitment is a challenge in developing population-representative pregnancy and birth cohorts.

Methods

We developed a collaborative recruitment infrastructure (CRI) to recruit pregnant women for 4 pregnancy cohorts using: faxes from obstetrical offices, in-clinic recruiters, university and funder-driven free-media events, paid-media, and attendance at relevant tradeshows. Recruitment rates and demographic differences were compared between recruitment methods.

Results

We received 5008 referrals over 40 months. Compared to fax, free-media referrals were 13 times more likely to be recruited (OR 13.0, 95% CI 4.2, 40.4: p < 0.001) and paid-media referrals were 4 times more likely to be recruited (OR 4.6, 95% CI 2.1, 10.3: p < 0.001). Among paid-media advertisements, free-to-read print (e.g. Metro) was the most effective (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.3, 4.5: p < 0.05). Several demographic differences were identified between recruitment methods and against a reference population. Between recruitment methods, media recruits had a similar proportion families with incomes ≥ $40,000 (paid-media: 94.4%; free-media: 93.3%) compared to fax recruits (95.7%), while in-clinic recruits were less likely to have family incomes ≥ $40,000 (88.8%, p < 0.05). Maternal recruits from fax and in-clinic were more likely to attend university (Fax: 92.6%, in-clinic 89.8%) versus the reference population (52.0%; p < 0.05 for both) and both were less likely to smoke (Fax: 6.8%, in-clinic 4.2%) versus reference (18.6%; p < 0.05 for both). However, while fax referrals were more likely to be Caucasian (85.9% versus reference 77.5%; p < 0.05), in-clinic referrals were not significantly different (78.2%; P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Recruitment methods result in different recruitment rates and participant demographics. A variety of methods are required to recruit a generalizable sample.

Recruitment of pregnant women in research

The aim was to identify factors that could influence recruitment in a prospective longitudinal study involving pregnant women. A total of 269 nulliparous women were enrolled for a prospective longitudinal study, to establish the prevalence of levator ani muscle defects during childbirth. The project was explained verbally and potential participants were given an information leaflet. When eligible and interested, they provided their contact details to enquire if they were willing to participate. Out of the 1,473 women approached, 269 (18.3%) agreed to participate and 1,043 (70.8%) declined; 420 women (40.3%) did not provide a reason for non-participation (see text for further details). Most often mentioned reasons were 'being too busy', 'other pregnancy problems', 'no additional (internal) examination', 'moving (abroad)' and 'husband'. Women from different ethnicities and age groups gave a wide variety of reasons for non-participation. This information can now be used by researchers recruiting women for comparable studies, to enhance recruitment and participation of eligible patients.

The role of social media in recruiting for clinical trials in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of women in the periconceptional period to clinical studies using traditional advertising through medical establishments is difficult and slow. Given the widespread use of the internet as a source for medical information and research, we analyze the impact of social media in the second phase of an ongoing randomized, open-label clinical trial among pregnant women. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of social media as a recruitment tool through the comparison of diverse recruitment techniques in two different phases of the trial.

METHODS

Recruitment in Phase 1 of the study consisted solely of traditional healthcare-based sources. This was compared to Phase 2 of the study where traditional recruitment was continued and expanded, while social media was used as a supplementary source. Yearly recruitment and recruitment rates in the two phases were compared using the Mann Whitney U test. The contributions of each recruitment source to overall recruitment were analyzed, and the impact of potential confounders on recruitment rate was evaluated using a multiple regression and Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

RESULTS

In the first phase of the study, with over 56 months of recruitment using traditional sources, 35 women were enrolled in the study, resulting in a mean rate of ±0.62 recruits/month. In the 6 months implementing recruitment through social media, 45 women were recruited, for a 12-fold higher rate of ±7.5 recruits/month. Attrition rates remained constant, suggesting that social media had a positive impact on recruitment. The Interrupted Time Series Analysis detected a significant difference in recruitment after the intervention of social media (p<0.0001) with an evident increase in the number of recruits observed after the use of social media.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians and scientists recruiting for clinical studies should learn how to use online social media platforms to improve recruitment rates, thus increasing recruitment efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

The face of equipoise--delivering a structured education programme within a randomized controlled trial: qualitative study

Background

In trials of behavioural interventions, the individuals who deliver the intervention are in a position of key influence on the success of the trial. Their fidelity to the intervention is crucial. Yet little is understood about the experiences of this group of trial personnel. This study aimed to investigate the views and experiences of educators who delivered a structured education intervention to people with type 2 diabetes, which incorporated training in self-monitoring of either blood glucose (SMBG) or urine glucose (SMUG) as part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

Educators’ views were explored through focus groups before and after training (N = 18) and approximately 1 year into the trial (N = 14), and semi-structured telephone interviews at approximately 2 years (N = 7). Analysis was based on the constant comparative method.

Results

Educators held preferences regarding the intervention variants; thus, they were not in individual equipoise. Training raised awareness of preferences and their potential to impact on delivery. Educators were confident in their unbiased delivery, but acknowledged the challenges involved. Concealing their preferences was helped by a sense of professionalism, the patient-centred nature of the intervention, and concessions in the trial protocol (enabling participants to swap monitoring methods if needed). Commitment to unbiased delivery was explained through a desire for evidence-based knowledge in the contentious area of SMBG.

Conclusions

The findings provide insight into a previously unexplored group of trial personnel - intervention deliverers in trials of behavioural interventions - which will be useful to those designing and running similar trials. Rather than individual equipoise, it is intervention deliverers’ awareness of personal preferences and their potential impact on the trial outcome that facilitates unbiased delivery. Further, awareness of community equipoise, the need for evidence, and relevance to the individual enhance commitment to the RCT.

Trial registration

ISRCTN95696668

Determining information for inclusion in a decision-support intervention for clinical trial participation: a modified Delphi approach

BACKGROUND

The use of decision-support interventions in the context of decisions about trial participation is an emergent field. There is a lack of evidence about what information is deemed important to support decisions about informed consent for clinical trials, and whether different groups agree on the information for inclusion.

PURPOSE

The overall objective was to determine the items which different stakeholder groups viewed to be important for inclusion in a decision-support tool when making decisions about clinical trial participation, with a view to use these as a framework for developing decision-support tools in this context. This is the first study to have addressed this issue.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was used to determine agreement on importance of items. The 'stakeholder' panel was made up of 49 individuals from 5 groups: 11 trialists, 6 research nurses, 7 ethics committee chairs, 9 decision-support experts, and 16 patients (9 trial experienced and 7 trial non-experienced). Two rounds of rating were completed. Items with a median of 7-10 with ≥65% of any one group (from aggregate ratings) in agreement were considered important for inclusion.

RESULTS

The stakeholder panel achieved consensus on the majority of items included (60/66), agreeing that these were important for inclusion in a decision-support tool for trial participation. These included items covering information about trial participation and standard care, information on the likelihood of receiving different treatments, information to help patients determine what matters most to them, ensuring that the information is balanced, guidance on how to make a decision, disclosure of any conflicts of interest, using plain language in the tool, and guidance on the decision-support development process. Some areas of divergence among the panel were also identified relating to the use of patient stories.

LIMITATIONS

Selection bias may be a limitation in this study due to the manner in which the participants were invited to take part, and therefore, the representativeness, and reproducibility with another group of stakeholders, may differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement was obtained on a number of items, which we recommend should be used as a framework to develop useful tools to support decision-making about participation in clinical trials.

Recruitment to clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies of reasons for participation

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials are important for evaluating health care interventions, but recruitment can be difficult. Studies of potential participants' perspectives on trial participation are accumulating, but their collective contribution is not obvious. In 2007, we conducted a meta-ethnographic synthesis of people's reasons for accepting or declining participation. This paper reports a second synthesis, conducted separately on the same topic, using studies published subsequently. It discusses both the substantive findings and the methodological implications for updating meta-ethnographies.

METHODS

Systematic searches identified relevant papers published between 1996 and 2005 (first synthesis), then 2005 and 2010 (second synthesis). We used a meta-ethnographic interpretive process of translation to examine the relationships between study findings.

FINDINGS

The two syntheses were broadly compatible, but the line of argument developed in the second more clearly highlighted how potential participants' health states and health care situations at the time of recruitment could interact with other considerations. In particular, they could influence the nature and significance for trial entry decisions of people's judgements about: their communication and relationship with trial recruiters; the personal implications of trial interventions and processes; and the 'common good' (helping others) and what their non/participation might say about their identity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work highlights the need for trialists to consider potential participants' health and health care situations when designing recruitment approaches. It also provides the first empirical insights on the process of updating meta-ethnographies that we are currently aware of. Approaches to updating meta-ethnographies need further investigation.

Volunteer bias in recruitment, retention, and blood sample donation in a randomised controlled trial involving mothers and their children at six months and two years: a longitudinal analysis

BACKGROUND

The vulnerability of clinical trials to volunteer bias is under-reported. Volunteer bias is systematic error due to differences between those who choose to participate in studies and those who do not.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This paper extends the applications of the concept of volunteer bias by using data from a trial of probiotic supplementation for childhood atopy in healthy dyads to explore 1) differences between a) trial participants and aggregated data from publicly available databases b) participants and non-participants as the trial progressed 2) impact on trial findings of weighting data according to deprivation (Townsend) fifths in the sample and target populations. 1) a) Recruits (n = 454) were less deprived than the target population, matched for area of residence and delivery dates (n = 6,893) (mean [SD] deprivation scores 0.09[4.21] and 0.79[4.08], t = 3.44, df = 511, p<0.001). b) i) As the trial progressed, representation of the most deprived decreased. These participants and smokers were less likely to be retained at 6 months (n = 430[95%]) (OR 0.29,0.13-0.67 and 0.20,0.09-0.46), and 2 years (n = 380[84%]) (aOR 0.68,0.50-0.93 and 0.55,0.28-1.09), and consent to infant blood sample donation (n = 220[48%]) (aOR 0.72,0.57-0.92 and 0.43,0.22-0.83). ii) Mothers interested in probiotics or research or reporting infants' adverse events or rashes were more likely to attend research clinics and consent to skin-prick testing. Mothers participating to help children were more likely to consent to infant blood sample donation. 2) In one trial outcome, atopic eczema, the intervention had a positive effect only in the over-represented, least deprived group. Here, data weighting attenuated risk reduction from 6.9%(0.9-13.1%) to 4.6%(-1.4-+10.5%), and OR from 0.40(0.18-0.91) to 0.56(0.26-1.21). Other findings were unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential for volunteer bias intensified during the trial, due to non-participation of the most deprived and smokers. However, these were not the only predictors of non-participation. Data weighting quantified volunteer bias and modified one important trial outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This randomised, double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Register, Number (ISRCTN) 26287422. Registered title: Probiotics in the prevention of atopy in infants and children.

Standard- or high-dose oxytocin for nulliparous women with confirmed delay in labour: quantitative and qualitative results from a pilot randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Evidence suggests that a high dose of oxytocin for nulliparous women at 37-42 weeks of gestation with confirmed delay in labour increases spontaneous vaginal birth. We undertook a pilot study to test the feasibility of this treatment.

DESIGN

Pilot double-blind randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Three teaching hospitals in the UK.

POPULATION

A total of 94 consenting nulliparous women at term with confirmed delay in labour were recruited, and 18 were interviewed.

METHODS

Women were assigned to either a standard (2 mU/min, increasing every 30 minutes to 32 mU/minute) or a high-dose regimen (4 mU/minute, increasing every 30 minutes to 64 mU/minutes) oxytocin by computer-generated randomisation. Simple descriptive statistics were used, as the sample size was insufficient to evaluate clinical outcomes. The constant comparative method was used to analyse the interviews.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The main outcome measures: number of women eligible; maternal and neonatal birth; safety; maternal psychological outcomes and experiences; health-related quality of life outcomes using validated tools and data on health service resource use; incidence of suspected delay of labour (cervical dilatation of <2 cm after 4 hours, once labour is established); and incidence of confirmed delay of labour (progress of <1 cm on repeat vaginal examination after a period of 2 hours).

RESULTS

We successfully developed systems to recruit eligible women in labour and to collect data. Rates of spontaneous vaginal birth (10/47 versus 12/47, RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.5) and caesarean section (15/47 versus 17/47, RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.0) were increased, and rates of instrumental birth were reduced (21/47 versus 17/47, RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.3). No evidence of increased harm for either mother or baby was found. The incidences of suspected delay (14%) and confirmed delay (11%) in labour were less than anticipated. Of those who did not go on to have delayed labour confirmed, all except one woman gave birth vaginally.

CONCLUSIONS

A pilot trial assessing the efficacy of high-dose oxytocin was feasible, but uncertainty remains, highlighting the need for a large definitive trial. The implementation of national guidance of suspected and confirmed delay in labour is likely to reduce intervention.