Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28506267›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research.

Indira S E van der Zande, Rieke van der Graaf, Martijn A Oudijk, Johannes J M van Delden

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. An exploration of women's experience of taking part in a randomized controlled trial of a diagnostic test during pregnancy: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Indira S E van der ZandeJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, P.O. box 85500, 3508 GA, The Netherlands. i.s.e.vanderzande@umcutrecht.nl.
Rieke van der GraafJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, P.O. box 85500, 3508 GA, The Netherlands.
Martijn A OudijkAcademic Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes J M van DeldenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, P.O. box 85500, 3508 GA, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study.

methodsWe conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands.

resultsThree themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals' individual perception of risk may influence recruitment.

conclusionsHealthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women.

Indexed as

Pregnant PeopleAdultBiomedical ResearchFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPregnancyProspective StudiesQualitative ResearchRisk AssessmentYoung AdultClinical researchPregnant womenQualitative researchResearch ethicsRisk

Identifiers

PMID28506267
PMCPMC5432995
OpenAlexW2615822566

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.