Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26341516›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

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

Katrien Oude Rengerink, Sabine Logtenberg, Lotty Hooft, Patrick M Bossuyt, Ben Willem Mol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Insulin Use During Gestational and Pre-existing Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Study Design.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Electronic Monitoring Of Mom's Schedule (eMOMSPreventive medicine reports · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katrien Oude RengerinkAcademic Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. K.OudeRengerink@amc.uva.nl.
Sabine LogtenbergOnze Lieve Vrouwen Gasthuis, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Oosterpark 9, 1091 AC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. slmlogtenberg@gmail.com.
Lotty HooftDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. L.Hooft@umcutrecht.nl.
Patrick M BossuytAcademic Medical Center, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p.m.m.bossuyt@amc.uva.nl.
Ben Willem MolThe Robinson Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. b.w.mol@amc.uva.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPregnant 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionsAmong 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.

Indexed as

AdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMotivationNetherlandsPatient SelectionPregnancyPregnant PeopleQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Subjects

Identifiers

PMID26341516
PMCPMC4560072

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.