ArticleBMJ open2023
Qualitative interview study exploring the perspectives of pregnant women on participating in controlled human infection research in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials: A mixed-methods systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Investigating the acceptability of cervical screening, using conventional clinician-taken cervical samples or urine self-sampling, at 6 weeks postnatal: A cross-sectional questionnaire.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPregnant women have been historically excluded from interventional research. While recent efforts have been made to improve their involvement, there remains a disparity in the evidence base for treatments available to pregnant women compared with the non-pregnant population. A significant barrier to the enrolment of pregnant women within research is risk perception and a poor understanding of decision-making in this population.
objectiveAssess the risk perception and influences on decision-making in pregnant women, when considering whether to enrol in a hypothetical interventional research study.
designSemistructured interviews were undertaken, and thematic analysis was undertaken of participant responses.
participantsTwelve pregnant women were enrolled from an antenatal outpatient clinic.
resultsParticipants were unanimously positive about enrolling in the proposed hypothetical interventional study. Risk perception was influenced by potential risks to their fetus and their previous experiences of healthcare and research. Participants found the uncertainty in quantifying risk for new research interventions challenging. They were motivated to enrol in research by altruism and found less invasive research interventions more tolerable.
conclusionIt is vital to understand how pregnant women balance the perceived risks and benefits of interventional research. This may help clinicians and scientists better communicate risk to pregnant women and address the ongoing under-representation of pregnant women in interventional research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.