How do parents experience being asked to enter a child in a randomised controlled trial?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As the number of randomised controlled trials of medicines for children increases, it becomes progressively more important to understand the experiences of parents who are asked to enrol their child in a trial. This paper presents a narrative review of research evidence on parents' experiences of trial recruitment focussing on qualitative research, which allows them to articulate their views in their own words.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Parents want to do their best for their children, and socially and legally their role is to care for and protect them yet the complexities of the medical and research context can challenge their fulfilment of this role. Parents are simultaneously responsible for their child and cherish this role yet they are dependent on others when their child becomes sick. They are keen to exercise responsibility for deciding to enter a child in a trial yet can be fearful of making the 'wrong' decision. They make judgements about the threat of the child's condition as well as the risks of the trial yet their interpretations often differ from those of medical and research experts. Individual pants will experience these and other complexities to a greater or lesser degree depending on their personal experiences and values, the medical situation of their child and the nature of the trial. Interactions at the time of trial recruitment offer scope for negotiating these complexities if practitioners have the flexibility to tailor discussions to the needs and situation of individual parents. In this way, parents may be helped to retain a sense that they have acted as good parents to their child whatever decision they make.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Discussing randomised controlled trials and gaining and providing informed consent is challenging. The unique position of parents in giving proxy consent for their child adds to this challenge. Recognition of the complexities parents face in making decisions about trials suggests lines for future research on the conduct of trials, and ultimately, may help improve the experience of trial recruitment for all parties.</p

'We knew it was a totally random thing': parents' experiences of being part of a 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

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

Background: Conducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet approaching parents at this difficult time raises challenges for the obtaining of valid informed consent to such research. This study asked: what light does the empirical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to the obtaining of informed consent in perinatal clinical trials? Methods: A systematic search identified 49 studies. Analysis began by applying philosophical frameworks which were then refined in light of the concepts emerging from empirical studies to present a coherent picture of a broad literature. Results: Between them, studies addressed the attitudes of both parents and clinicians concerning consent in neonatal trials; the validity of the consent process in the neonatal research context; and different possible methods of obtaining consent. Conclusions: Despite a variety of opinions among parents and clinicians there is a strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give or decline consent for neonatal participation in trials. However, none of the range of existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory. A significant gap is evaluation of the widespread practice of emergency ‘assent’, in which parents assent or refuse their baby’s participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to ongoing participation and follow-up. Emergency assent has not been evaluated for its acceptability, how such a process would deal with bad outcomes such as neonatal death between assent and consent, or the extent to which late parental refusal might bias results. This review of a large number of empirical papers, while not making fundamental changes, has refined and developed the conceptual framework from philosophy for examining informed consent in this context

Reducing the time-lag between onset of chest pain and seeking professional medical help: a theory-based review

Background: Research suggests that there are a number of factors which can be associated with delay in a patient seeking professional help following chest pain, including demographic and social factors. These factors may have an adverse impact on the efficacy of interventions which to date have had limited success in improving patient action times. Theory-based methods of review are becoming increasingly recognised as important additions to conventional systematic review methods. They can be useful to gain additional insights into the characteristics of effective interventions by uncovering complex underlying mechanisms. Methods: This paper describes the further analysis of research papers identified in a conventional systematic review of published evidence. The aim of this work was to investigate the theoretical frameworks underpinning studies exploring the issue of why people having a heart attack delay seeking professional medical help. The study used standard review methods to identify papers meeting the inclusion criterion, and carried out a synthesis of data relating to theoretical underpinnings. Results: Thirty six papers from the 53 in the original systematic review referred to a particular theoretical perspective, or contained data which related to theoretical assumptions. The most frequently mentioned theory was the self-regulatory model of illness behaviour. Papers reported the potential significance of aspects of this model including different coping mechanisms, strategies of denial and varying models of treatment seeking. Studies also drew attention to the potential role of belief systems, applied elements of attachment theory, and referred to models of maintaining integrity, ways of knowing, and the influence of gender. Conclusions: The review highlights the need to examine an individual’s subjective experience of and response to health threats, and confirms the gap between knowledge and changed behaviour. Interventions face key challenges if they are to influence patient perceptions regarding seriousness of symptoms; varying processes of coping; and obstacles created by patient perceptions of their role and responsibilities. A theoretical approach to review of these papers provides additional insight into the assumptions underpinning interventions, and illuminates factors which may impact on their efficacy. The method thus offers a useful supplement to conventional systematic review methods