Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28446203›Full record

Trial reportTrials2017

Clinicians' views and experiences of offering two alternative consent pathways for participation in a preterm intrapartum trial: a qualitative study.

Celine Y Chhoa, Alexandra Sawyer, Susan Ayers, Angela Pushpa-Rajah, Lelia Duley

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Celine Y ChhoaCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, EC1R 1UW, UK.
Alexandra SawyerCentre for Health Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Falmer, BN1 9PH, UK. A.Sawyer@brighton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7098-6467
Susan AyersCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, EC1R 1UW, UK.
Angela Pushpa-RajahDepartment of Dermatology, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Lelia DuleyNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0609-10107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Cord Pilot Trial compared alternative policies for timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth at eight UK hospitals. Preterm birth can be rapid and unexpected, allowing little time for the usual consent process. Therefore, in addition to the usual procedure for written consent, a two-stage pathway for consent for use when birth was imminent was developed. The aims of this study were to explore clinicians' views and experiences of offering two consent pathways for recruitment to a randomised trial of timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth.

methodsThis was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Clinicians from eight hospitals in the UK who had been involved in offering consent to the Cord Pilot Trial were invited to take part in an interview. Clinicians were interviewed in person or by telephone. Interviews were analysed using inductive systematic thematic analysis.

resultsSeventeen clinicians who had either offered usual written consent only (n = 6) or both the two-stage pathway (with oral assent before the birth and written consent after the birth) and usual written consent (n = 11) were interviewed. Six themes were identified: (1) team approach to offering participation; (2) consent form as a record; (3) consent and participation as a continual process; (4) different consent pathways for different trials; (5) balance between time, information, and understanding; and (6) validity of consent. Overall, clinicians were supportive of the two-stage consent pathway. Some clinicians felt that in time-critical situations oral assent presented an advantage over the usual written consent as they provided information on a "need to know" basis. However, there was some concern about how much information should be given for oral assent, and how this is understood by women when birth is imminent.

conclusionsThe two-stage pathway for consent developed for use in the Cord Pilot Trial when birth was imminent was acceptable to clinicians for comparable low-risk studies, although some concerns were raised about the practicalities of obtaining oral assent.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21456601 . Registered on 28 February 2013.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelInfant, Extremely PrematureInformed ConsentPatient SelectionPremature BirthConstrictionFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornInterviews as TopicPilot ProjectsPregnancyQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelResearch SubjectsClinical trialsConsentEthicsOral assentPreterm birth

Identifiers

PMID28446203
PMCPMC5406899

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.