Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30081858›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Women's experiences of being invited to participate in a case-control study of stillbirth - findings from the Midlands and North of England Stillbirth Study.

Jayne Budd, Tomasina Stacey, Bill Martin, Devender Roberts, Alexander E P Heazell

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02025530 (The Midlands and North of England Stillbirth Study - A Case-Control Study of Modifiable Factors in Late Stillbirth), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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.

NCT02025530 completednot on this map

The Midlands and North of England Stillbirth Study - A Case-Control Study of Modifiable Factors in Late Stillbirth

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of ManchesterRan2014 to 2017Enrolled1,030ConditionsStillbirthArmsQuestionnaire
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jayne BuddMaternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biological, Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. jayne.budd@mft.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2076-7378
Tomasina StaceySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Bill MartinBirmingham Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Devender RobertsLiverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK.
Alexander E P HeazellMaternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biological, Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Action Medical Research GN2156
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Midlands and North of England Stillbirth Study (MiNESS) was a case-control study of women who had a stillbirth or who had an ongoing pregnancy. During the set up phase questions were raised about whether interviewing women within six weeks of a stillbirth and recruiting women who were still pregnant into a "stillbirth" study was acceptable. This led to the research questions "whether it is appropriate to ask women who have recently experienced a stillbirth to participate in research?" and "whether it is appropriate to ask pregnant women to participate in a research project looking at factors associated with stillbirth." This nested study aimed to describe the opinions of women approached to participate in MiNESS to explore their views and experiences of a research project focussed on stillbirth.

methodsSemi- structured interviews were conducted at a single study site involved in MiNESS. Purposive sampling was used to obtain a sample of women who were approached following a stillbirth (case n = 6) and those who were approached during pregnancy who gave birth to a live born baby (control n = 6). These two groups of women were divided equally according to whether they participated in the main MiNESS questionnaire study and those who declined to do so (n = 3 in each group). Interview data were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis to identify the most important factors in determining whether women participated in MiNESS.

resultsThe following themes emerged from the analysis: participants' understanding of research; approach by researcher; wanting to help; stillbirth taboo. These themes are explored individually in the manuscript. Participants reported positive views about research and previous participation in research studies. Respondents valued an initial approach from a member of staff already known to them. The taboo around stillbirth was a barrier to participation for some women with ongoing pregnancies.

conclusionsExperiences and views regarding research differed between participants and non-participants in the MiNESS study. Participants reported a greater understanding of the importance and implications of clinical research. When designing future studies, the timing of approach, clarity of information and the person approaching potential participants should be considered to optimise recruitment.

trial registrationNCT02025530 date registered: 01/01/2014.

Indexed as

AttitudePatient SelectionStillbirthAdultCase-Control StudiesComprehensionEnglandFemaleHumansPregnancyQualitative ResearchTabooYoung AdultResearch participationResearch recruitmentStillbirth

Identifiers

PMID30081858
PMCPMC6091188
OpenAlexW2886169741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.