Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37322539›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2023

Women's and midwives' views on the optimum process for informed consent for research in a feasibility study involving an intrapartum intervention: a qualitative study.

Mary Alvarez, Emily J Hotton, Sam Harding, Jonathan Ives, Joanna F Crofts, Julia Wade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

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

6 authors.

Mary AlvarezDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, BS10 5NB, Bristol, UK. mary.alvarez@nbt.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6848-2067
Emily J HottonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, BS10 5NB, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8570-9136
Sam HardingDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, BS10 5NB, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5870-2094
Jonathan IvesBristol Medical School, Bristol University, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5233-5000
Joanna F CroftsDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, BS10 5NB, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9416-0176
Julia WadeBristol Medical School, Bristol University, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6486-6477

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation INV-010180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment to intrapartum research is complex. Women are expected to understand unfamiliar terminology and assess potential harm versus benefit to their baby and themselves, often when an urgent intervention is required. Time pressures of intrapartum interventions are a major challenge for recruitment discussions taking place during labour, with research midwives expected to present, discuss and answer questions whilst maintaining equipoise. However, little is known about these interactions. An integrated qualitative study (IQS) was used to investigate information provision for women invited to participate in the Assist II feasibility study investigating the OdonAssist™-a novel device for use in assisted vaginal birth with an aim to generate a framework of good practice for information provision.

methodsTranscripts of in-depth interviews with women participants (n = 25), with recruiting midwives (n = 6) and recruitment discussions between midwives and women (n = 21), accepting or declining participation, were coded and interpreted using thematic analysis and content analysis to investigate what was helpful to women and what could be improved.

resultsRecruiting women to intrapartum research is complicated by factors that impact on women's understanding and decision-making. Three key themes were derived from the data: (i) a woman-centred recruitment process, (ii) optimising the recruitment discussion and (iii) making a decision for two.

conclusionDespite evidence from the literature that women would like information provision and the research discussion to take place in the antenatal period, intrapartum studies still vary in the recruitment processes they offer women. Particularly concerning is that some women are given information for the first time whilst in labour, when they are known to feel particularly vulnerable, and contextual factors may influence decision-making; therefore, we propose a framework for good practice for information provision for research involving interventions initiated in the intrapartum period as a woman centred, and acceptable model of recruitment, which addresses the concerns of women and midwives and facilitates fair inclusion into intrapartum trials.

trial registrationISRCTN. This qualitative research was undertaken as part of the ASSIST II Trial (trial registration number: ISRCTN38829082. Prospectively registered on 26/06/2019).

Indexed as

Informed consentIntrapartum interventionMaternityQualitative researchResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID37322539
PMCPMC10268483

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.