Trial reportArchives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition2026
Parent and practitioner experiences of opt-out consent in neonatal intensive care: a mixed methods study within a trial.
Trial report in Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn neonatal trials, verbal opt-out consent has been used to reduce burden on families and make recruitment more efficient and representative. It involves information provision through posters and leaflets before randomisation, and parents can verbally 'opt out' of their baby being randomised to the trial. There is limited understanding of how opt-out consent is operationalised in a multicentre neonatal trial, and its acceptability to staff and parents.
objectiveTo explore views and experiences of verbal opt-out consent in neoGASTRIC, a neonatal randomised trial comparing routine and no routine measurements of gastric contents in preterm babies.
methodsA mixed methods (questionnaires, interviews and focus groups) process evaluation within a trial.
settingFour UK neonatal units.
participants253 participants: 167 staff (149 questionnaires; 18 across two focus groups), 86 parents (85 questionnaires; 15 interviews; 14 took part in both).
resultsParents and staff supported opt-out consent in neoGASTRIC as interventions were viewed as low risk and non-invasive. Parents appreciated an appropriately timed research conversation; only 21% noticed study information banners/posters. Operationalisation of opt-out consent varied in terms of when information was provided and randomisation timing. Women approached during labour or within hours of birth reported feeling overwhelmed and lacking capacity to consider research. Some staff operationalised a modified opt-in approach.
conclusionsAn appropriately timed verbal opt-out approach to consent was seen acceptable as proportionate in the neonatal context in a low-risk trial comparing different accepted clinical, non-pharmaceutical, practices. Findings informed neoGASTRIC and will guide approaches to consent in this setting.
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.