Collaboration, participation and non-participation : decisions about involvement in randomised controlled trials for clinicians and parents in two neonatal trials

Background: The ethical basis of randomised controlled trials is equipoise, whether at the collective or individual level. Neonatal intensive care trials are therefore conducted in a context of clinical uncertainty as well as stress and trauma. The theoretical literature suggests that tensions exist in the trials situation between the aims of care and research. Objectives: To improve understanding of decisions that clinicians and parents make about neonatal trial collaboration, participation and non-participation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 neonatologists and 63 parents from 5 UK hospitals who were offered enrolment in the INNOVO and/or CANDA trials. Qualitative analysis was aided by ATLAS-ti. Results: The neonatologists' interviews suggested an intermediate level of equipoise. A therapeutic orientation operated for the INNOVO Trial but not for the CANDA Trial. Neonatologists often did not connect trial participation and trial-related postmortem pathology studies. Most parents made very rapid decisions about trial participation. Perception of risk was independent of the trial under consideration but associated with a slower decision-making process. The 'therapeutic misconception' was present for parents in both trials. Many supported contributing to research. For some of the bereaved parents, this extended to contribution to trial-related pathology studies. Parents who declined the CANDA Trial saw risks in the trial situation. Conclusions: Decisions were complex and multi-tiered. The boundaries between care and research were often unclear for neonatologists and parents. Clarification of the nature of decisions at the heart of clinical trials is needed, so that those associated with research might be willing collaborators and participants, fully cognisant of the activity in which they are engageEThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

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

First steps: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) program compared to routine care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from the USA suggests that the home-based Family Nurse Partnership program (FNP), extending from early pregnancy until infants are 24 months, can reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect throughout childhood. FNP is now widely available in the UK. A new variant, Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) offers similar content but in a group context and for a shorter time, until infants are 12 months old. Each group comprises 8 to 12 women with similar expected delivery dates and their partners. Its implementation has been established but there is no evidence of its effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: The study comprises a multi-site randomized controlled trial designed to identify the benefits of gFNP compared to standard care. Participants (not eligible for FNP) must be either aged < 20 years at their last menstrual period (LMP) with one or more previous live births, or aged 20 to 24 at LMP with low educational qualifications and no previous live births. 'Low educational qualifications' is defined as not having both Maths and English Language GCSE at grade C or higher or, if they have both, no more than four in total at grade C or higher. Exclusions are: under 20 years and previously received home-based FNP and, in either age group, severe psychotic mental illness or not able to communicate in English. Consenting women are randomly allocated (minimized by site and maternal age group) when between 10 and 16 weeks pregnant to either to the 44 session gFNP program or to standard care after the collection of baseline information. Researchers are blind to group assignment.The primary outcomes at 12 months are child abuse potential based on the revised Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory and parent/infant interaction coded using the CARE Index based on a video-taped interaction. Secondary outcomes are maternal depression, parenting stress, health related quality of life, social support, and use of services. DISCUSSION: This is the first study of the effectiveness of gFNP in the UK. Results should inform decision-making about its delivery alongside universal services, potentially enabling a wider range of families to benefit from the FNP curriculum and approach to supporting parenting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN78814904

The BRACELET Study: surveys of mortality in UK neonatal and paediatric intensive care trials.

BACKGROUND: The subject of death and bereavement in the context of randomised controlled trials in neonatal or paediatric intensive care is under-researched. The objectives of this phase of the Bereavement and RAndomised ControlLEd Trials (BRACELET) Study were to determine trial activity in UK neonatal and paediatric intensive care (2002-06); numbers of deaths before hospital discharge; and variation in mortality across intensive care units and trials and to determine whether bereavement support policies were available within trials. These are essential prerequisites to considering the implications of future policies and practice subsequent to bereavement following a child's enrollment in a trial. METHODS: The units survey involved neonatal units providing level 2 or 3 care, and paediatric units providing level II care or above; the trials survey involved trials where allocation was randomized and interventions were delivered to intensive care patients, or to parents but designed to affect patient outcomes. RESULTS: Information was available from 191/220 (87%) neonatal units (149 level 2 or 3 care); and 28/32 (88%) paediatric units. 90/177 (51%) eligible responding units participated in one or more trial (76 neonatal, 14 paediatric) and 54 neonatal units and 6 paediatric units witnessed at least one death. 50 trials were identified (36 neonatal, 14 paediatric). 3,137 babies were enrolled in neonatal trials, 210 children in paediatric trials. Deaths ranged 0-278 (median [IQR interquartile range] 2 [1, 14.5]) per neonatal trial, 0-4 (median [IQR] 1 [0, 2.5]) per paediatric trial. 534 (16%) participants died post-enrollment: 522 (17%) in neonatal trials, 12 (6%) in paediatric trials. Trial participants ranged 1-236 (median [IQR] 21.5 [8, 39.8]) per neonatal unit, 1-53 (median [IQR] 11.5 [2.3, 33.8]) per paediatric unit. Deaths ranged 0-37 (median [IQR] 3.5 [0.3, 8.8]) per neonatal unit, 0-7 (median [IQR] 0.5 [0, 1.8]) per paediatric unit. Three trials had a formal policy for responding to bereavement. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of deaths after trial enrollment were identified, distributed over many trials and units. Few trial teams had responses to bereavement in place. Those with the largest numbers of deaths might be best placed to collaborate in developing and assessing responses to bereavement.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

"You have to keep your nerve on a DMC." Challenges for Data Monitoring Committees in neonatal intensive care trials: Qualitative accounts from the BRACELET Study.

BACKGROUND: Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) are essential to the good conduct of many trials. Typically they comprise a small expert group which monitors safety, efficacy, progress and early outcome data as trials recruit. DMCs can recommend protocol revisions and early stopping of a trial. As DMC meetings usually consider unblinded interim data confidentially, their deliberations are seldom exposed to research scrutiny. Although there have been some case studies from trials from mixed specialties which offer insights into some of the common issues faced by DMCs, we have, however, little empirical information about the challenges faced within specific clinical settings. METHODS: In-depth interviews with participants in the BRACELET Study on death and bereavement in neonatal intensive care trials produced qualitative accounts of experiences and views of a subgroup of 18 DMC members. These interviews explored views of DMC members in relation to the clinical context of neonatal intensive care and the conduct of neonatal intensive care trials. RESULTS: Interviewees felt that an understanding of both the neonatal intensive care setting and population was crucial in a DMC. They considered the neonatal intensive care research population especially vulnerable, and that outcomes that included both death and severe disability raised particular challenges rarely faced in other settings. In exploring these key outcomes they were mindful of the need to meet high scientific standards and the needs of babies in the trials and their families. DMC members discussed particular difficulties around the composite outcome of death and severe disability, especially when mortality data were available long before data on longer term disability. While statistical stopping guidance is helpful, DMC members described decisions about stopping, revising or continuing a trial being informed by a wider set of considerations and discussions than a pre-set p value. These included potentially competing needs of current trial participants and future patients, and reflections on the nature of benefit and harm. Given their cognisance of the potential impact and consequences of the decisions made by DMCs in this setting of life, death, and disability, interviewees commonly used the imagery of bravery, and described DMCs either holding or losing their nerve. CONCLUSIONS: DMCs for trials in other fields may also face difficult ethical trade-offs in monitoring composite outcomes. The experience from this sample of DMC members suggest that for neonatal intensive care trials there are some very specific challenges seldom faced elsewhere. The vulnerability of the population, and the different timescales for essential data becoming available to inform decisions, presented particular challenges. We suggest that it is important to consider the challenges raised in other settings to better understand the complex work of these committees and to prepare future generations of DMC members