Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30115019›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Engaging pregnant women in observational research: a qualitative exploratory study.

Evelyne Muggli, Helen Curd, Cate Nagle, Della Forster, Jane Halliday

Open 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. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Evelyne MuggliMurdoch Childrens Research Institute, 50 Flemington Rd, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Helen CurdMonash Health Genetics Department, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Rd, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Cate NagleCentre for Nursing and Midwifery Research, James Cook University, 1 James Cook Dr, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia. cate.nagle@jcu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5661-6379
Della ForsterJudith Lumley Centre, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Plenty Rd & Kingsbury Dr, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Jane HallidayMurdoch Childrens Research Institute, 50 Flemington Rd, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUMonash Medical Centre · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUTownsville Hospital · AU

Funding

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council 1011070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment of pregnant women to population health research can be challenging, especially if the research topic is sensitive. While many pregnant women may be inherently interested in research about pregnancy, there is the possibility that the nature and timing of the project may give rise to anxiety in some women, especially if the topic is sensitive or it brings about new awareness of potential pregnancy complications. Research staff undertaking recruitment need to be skilled at strategies to manage the environment, and have well developed communication and interpersonal skills to explain and promote the study and facilitate each woman's informed decision-making regarding participation. However, the skills needed by recruitment staff to successfully engage pregnant women with a research topic are not well understood. This study aimed to address this evidence gap by providing insight into the dynamics between a pregnant woman and recruitment staff at the time of the offer to participate in an observational study about alcohol use in pregnancy.

methodsNaturalistic inquiry guided a qualitative exploratory descriptive approach. Experienced recruitment staff from the Asking Questions about Alcohol in Pregnancy (AQUA) study (Muggli et al., BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 14:302, 2014) participated in individual semi-structured interviews and were asked about their experiences and approaches to engaging pregnant women. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis.

resultsPregnant women brought with them an inherent interest or disinterest in alcohol research, or in research in general, which formed the basis for engagement. Women responded favourably to the invitation to participate being delivered without pressure, and as part of a two-way conversation. Engagement with a sensitive topic such as alcohol use in pregnancy was facilitated by a non-judgmental and non-targeted approach. Influences such as privacy, distractions, partner's opinion, time factors and level of clinical support either facilitated or hindered a woman's engagement with the research.

conclusionsThese results provide an in-depth explanation of barriers and enablers to recruitment of pregnant women in antenatal clinics to studies that may inform strategies and the training of recruitment staff.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeObservational Studies as TopicPatient SelectionFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnant PeopleQualitative ResearchAlcohol use in pregnancyPerinatal researchRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID30115019
PMCPMC6097433
OpenAlexW2887951948

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.