Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24731249›Full record

ArticleTrials2014

Disappointment and adherence among parents of newborns allocated to the control group: a qualitative study of a randomized clinical trial.

Sandra Meinich Petersen, Vibeke Zoffmann, Jesper Kjærgaard, Lone Graff Stensballe, Lone Graff Steensballe, Gorm Greisen

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic review of control groups in nutrition education intervention research.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Changes in Atopic Sensitisation From 1 to 5 Years of Age: Longitudinal Data From the MIS BAIR Trial.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026
    Article
  13. Seeing the Truth About Double Blinding.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sandra Meinich PetersenDepartment of Neonatology, the Danish National Hospital - "Rigshospitalet", Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 København Ø, Copenhagen, Denmark. sandrameinich@gmail.com.
Vibeke Zoffmann
Jesper Kjærgaard
Lone Graff Stensballe
Lone Graff Steensballe
Gorm Greisen
Rigshospitalet · DKUllevål Sykehusapotek · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen a child participates in a clinical trial, informed consent has to be given by the parents. Parental motives for participation are complex, but the hope of getting a new and better treatment for the child is important. We wondered how parents react when their child is allocated to the control group of a randomized controlled trial, and how it will affect their future engagement in the trial.

methodsWe included parents of newborns randomized to the control arm in the Danish Calmette study at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen. The Calmette study is a randomized clinical trial investigating the non-specific effects of early BCG-vaccine to healthy neonates. Randomization is performed immediately after birth and parents are not blinded to the allocation. We set up a semi-structured focus group with six parents from four families. Afterwards we telephone-interviewed another 19 mothers to achieve saturation. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes across the data sets.

resultsThe parents reported good understanding of the randomization process. Their most common reaction to allocation was disappointment, though relief was also seen. A model of reactions to being allocated to the control group was developed based on the participants' different positions along two continuities from 'Our participation in trial is not important' to 'Our participation in trial is important', and 'Vaccine not important to us' to 'Vaccine important to us'. Four very disappointed families had thought of getting the vaccine elsewhere, and one had actually had their child vaccinated. All parents involved in the focus group and the telephone interviews wanted to participate in the follow-ups planned for the Calmette study.

conclusionsThis study identified an almost universal experience of disappointment among parents of newborns who were randomized to the control group, but also a broad expression of understanding and accepting the idea of randomization. The trial staff might use the model of reactions in understanding the parents' disappointment and in this way support their motives for participation. A generalized version might be applicable across randomized controlled trials at large.

trial registrationThe Calmette study is registered in EudraCT (https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/) with trial number 2010-021979-85.

Indexed as

EmotionsPatient CompliancePatient SelectionRandom AllocationAdultAltruismBCG VaccineComprehensionDenmarkFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInfant, NewbornInterviews as TopicMaleBCG Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID24731249
PMCPMC4022324
OpenAlexW4242114665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.