Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29998787›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2018

Women's Views About a Paternal Consent Requirement for Biomedical Research in Pregnancy.

Kristen A Sullivan, Maggie Little, Nora E Rosenberg, Tiwonge Mtande, Chifundo Zimba, Elana Jaffe, Jean Anderson, Jenell S Coleman, Sappho Gilbert, Marielle S Gross Wolf and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Paternal consent in prenatal research: ethical aspects.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kristen A Sullivan1 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
Maggie Little2 Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Nora E Rosenberg1 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
Tiwonge Mtande3 UNC Project Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Chifundo Zimba3 UNC Project Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Elana Jaffe1 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
Jean Anderson4 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jenell S Coleman4 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sappho Gilbert4 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Marielle S Gross Wolf4 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Irving Hoffman1 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
Lisa Rahangdale1 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
Ruth Faden4 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Anne Drapkin Lyerly1 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USJohns Hopkins University · USGeorgetown University · US

Funding

Virology, Immunology, and Microbiology CoreP30AI050410 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVID M. MARGOLIS · 2001 to 2026
$76.9M
The PHASES Project: Pregnancy and HIV/AIDS-Seeking Equitable StudyR01AI108368 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAY, SUZANNE LOUISE, LYERLY, ANNE DRAPKIN · 2015 to 2024
$6.4M
Integrating Decision Making Studies into HIV Cure Trials: A real-time longitudinal assessmentR01AI127024 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HENDERSON, GAIL E · 2016 to 2019
$2.2M
Developing and Assessing a Male Engagement Intervention for Option B+ in MalawiR00MH104154 · NIMH · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ROSENBERG, NORA · 2017 to 2019
$746k
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI050410NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI108368NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI127024NIMH NIH HHS R00 MH104154
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical research to inform the evidence base to guide nonobstetrical care during pregnancy is critically important for the well-being of women and their future offspring. Conversations about regulations for such research, including whether paternal consent should ever be required, should be informed by the perspectives of those most affected, namely, pregnant women. We conducted in-depth interviews with 140 pregnant women living with or at risk of HIV-70 in Malawi, 70 in the United States-exploring their views on requiring paternal consent for pregnant women's participation in trials offering the prospect of direct benefit solely to the fetus. The majority of women supported such a requirement; others raised concerns. A trio of themes-the father's or pregnant woman's rights, fetal protection, and gender/relationship dynamics-characterized views both supporting and against a paternal consent requirement, expanding the range of considerations that should inform approaches to paternal involvement in research with pregnant women.

Indexed as

AttitudeBiomedical ResearchFathersInformed ConsentPregnant PeopleResearch SubjectsSexual PartnersAdolescentAdultFemaleFetusHIV InfectionsHuman RightsHumansInterpersonal RelationsMalawiclinical trialsMalawipaternal consentpregnancyqualitative methodsresearch ethicsUnited Stateswomen’s views

Identifiers

PMID29998787
PMCPMC6360530
OpenAlexW2858993864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.