1
|
Shankar M, Hazfiarini A, Zahroh RI, Vogel JP, McDougall ARA, Condron P, Goudar SS, Pujar YV, Somannavar MS, Charantimath U, Ammerdorffer A, Rushwan S, Gülmezoglu AM, Bohren MA. Factors influencing the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials: A mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS Med 2024; 21:e1004405. [PMID: 38814991 PMCID: PMC11139290 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/19/2024] [Indexed: 06/01/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal-fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem. METHODS AND FINDINGS We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mridula Shankar
- Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alya Hazfiarini
- Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Rana Islamiah Zahroh
- Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Joshua P. Vogel
- Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Annie R. A. McDougall
- Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Patrick Condron
- University Library, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Shivaprasad S. Goudar
- Women’s and Children’s Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
| | - Yeshita V. Pujar
- Women’s and Children’s Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
| | - Manjunath S. Somannavar
- Women’s and Children’s Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
| | - Umesh Charantimath
- Women’s and Children’s Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
| | | | - Sara Rushwan
- Concept Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland/Bangkok, Thailand
| | | | - Meghan A. Bohren
- Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Davis S, Pandor A, Sampson FC, Hamilton J, Nelson-Piercy C, Hunt BJ, Daru J, Goodacre S, Carser R, Rooney G, Clowes M. Thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review and economic evaluation to estimate the value of future research. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-176. [PMID: 38476084 PMCID: PMC11017156 DOI: 10.3310/dfwt3873] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is currently recommended for women assessed as being at high risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or in the 6 weeks after delivery (the puerperium). The decision to provide thromboprophylaxis involves weighing the benefits, harms and costs, which vary according to the individual's venous thromboembolism risk. It is unclear whether the United Kingdom's current risk stratification approach could be improved by further research. Objectives To quantify the current decision uncertainty associated with selecting women who are pregnant or in the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis and to estimate the value of one or more potential future studies that would reduce that uncertainty, while being feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians. Methods A decision-analytic model was developed which was informed by a systematic review of risk assessment models to predict venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. Expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty and should be the target of future research. To find out whether future studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood-thinning drugs and surveyed healthcare professionals. Expected value of sample information analysis was used to estimate the value of potential future research studies. Results The systematic review included 17 studies, comprising 19 unique externally validated risk assessment models and 1 internally validated model. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable ranging from 0% to 100% and 5% to 100%, respectively. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. The decision analysis found that there is substantial decision uncertainty regarding the use of risk assessment models to select high-risk women for antepartum prophylaxis and obese postpartum women for postpartum prophylaxis. The main source of decision uncertainty was uncertainty around the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for preventing venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. We found that a randomised controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value and is more likely to be acceptable and feasible than a trial recruiting women who have had a previous venous thromboembolism. In unselected postpartum women and women following caesarean section, the poor performance of risk assessment models meant that offering prophylaxis based on these models had less favourable cost effectiveness with lower decision uncertainty. Limitations The performance of the risk assessment model for obese postpartum women has not been externally validated. Conclusions Future research should focus on estimating the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy and the puerperium, and clinical trials would be more acceptable in women who have not had a previous venous thromboembolism. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020221094. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131021) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Davis
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Abdullah Pandor
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Fiona C Sampson
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Jean Hamilton
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Beverley J Hunt
- Haematology and Pathology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jahnavi Daru
- Institute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Steve Goodacre
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Rosie Carser
- Patient and Public Involvement, Thrombosis UK, Llanwrda, UK
| | - Gill Rooney
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Mark Clowes
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Scott TA, Mercedes CR, Lin HM, Katz D. Motivations and demographic differences in pregnant individuals in the decision to participate in research. Can J Anaesth 2024; 71:87-94. [PMID: 37919628 DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02635-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2023] [Revised: 07/06/2023] [Accepted: 07/10/2023] [Indexed: 11/04/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Talia A Scott
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1010, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
| | - Cynthia R Mercedes
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Hung-Mo Lin
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel Katz
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hanrahan V, Gillies K, Biesty L. Recruiters' perspectives of recruiting women during pregnancy and childbirth to clinical trials: A qualitative evidence synthesis. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0234783. [PMID: 32559236 PMCID: PMC7304625 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234783] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2020] [Accepted: 06/02/2020] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Research on research is key to enhancing efficacy in trial methodology. Clinical trials involving women during pregnancy and childbirth are limited, with a paucity of data guiding evidence-based practice. Following a prioritisation exercise that highlighted the top-ten unanswered recruitment questions, this qualitative evidence synthesis was designed specifically to focus on the barriers and enablers for clinicians/healthcare professionals in helping conduct randomised trials within the context of recruitment during pregnancy and childbirth. METHODS The synthesis was undertaken using Thomas and Harden's three stage thematic synthesis method and reported following the ENTREQ guidelines. Using a pre-determined SPIDER strategy, we conducted a comprehensive search of databases; Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and grey searches for records until January 2019. We included all reports of qualitative data on recruiter's experiences, perceptions, views of recruiting women during pregnancy and childbirth to clinical trials. Altogether 13,401 records were screened, resulting in 31 full-text reviews, of which five were eligible for inclusion. Quality was appraised using CASP. Data were extracted onto a specifically defined form. We used thematic synthesis to identify descriptive and analytical themes, and to interpret and generate theory. Confidence was assessed using GRADE-CERQual. The review protocol is publicly available (OSF https://osf.io/g4dt9/). RESULTS Five papers (representing four individual studies) from two different countries were included. All studies focused on the experiences of trial recruiters in the maternity setting. We identified four analytical themes; Recruitment through a clinician's lens, Recruiters judgement on acceptability, From protocol to recruiters lived experience, Framing recruitment in context. These were linked by an overarching theme combining beliefs and power. CONCLUSION The overarching theme combining beliefs and power links the experiences and perceptions of recruiters. This synthesis shows a gap between the trial design study protocol and the recruiter's lived experience. Strategies such as collaborative trial design, mitigating gatekeeping behaviours, and training may support recruiters in their endeavour.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivienne Hanrahan
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Katie Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
| | - Linda Biesty
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|