ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Healthcare professionals' perceptions of the acceptability of the PREVENT-PE trial: A mixed-methods survey and interview study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is a lack of published data on how healthcare professionals perceive the acceptability of third-trimester risk screening in pregnancy. The PREVENT-PE trial [ISRCTN41632964] demonstrated that a personalized approach to term pre-eclampsia risk assessment to inform risk-stratified timed birth at term reduced the incidence of term PE by 30%, without increasing Cesarean birth or neonatal morbidity. We aimed to evaluate the acceptability of the PREVENT-PE trial among healthcare professionals. MATERIAL AND
methodsStaff were invited to an online survey comprising validated metrics of acceptability, which were analyzed descriptively. Also, the staff were invited to one-to-one interviews to probe the acceptability of the trial in more depth. Using template analysis, responses were mapped onto the following domains of acceptability: Sense-making (Intervention Coherence), Commitment (Affective Attitude), Change (Burden), Communication (Ethicality), Motivation (Opportunity Costs), Action (Self-Efficacy), and Evaluation (Perceived Effectiveness).
resultsThere were 65 completed surveys, whilst 19 healthcare professionals participated in interviews. Forty-one staff participants were from King's College Hospital, and twenty-one staff participants were from Medway Maritime Hospital, in line with the recruitment of participants to the trial. Approximately 29% of staff were of non-White ethnicity. Most staff were doctors or midwives, in similar proportions. One-third of staff participants had no prior involvement in clinical trials. Acceptability was endorsed by the majority of survey respondents (69.2%), as "very acceptable" (44.6%) or "somewhat acceptable" (24.6%). Interview findings endorsed acceptability from most staff toward participating in an evidence-based trial such as PREVENT-PE. Despite some concerns about implementation burden, system-level readiness, and counseling high-risk participants, the staff supported integrating such screening into routine maternity care if effectiveness is confirmed.
conclusionsThe PREVENT-PE trial had a high level of acceptability among healthcare professionals. Staff view risk screening in the third trimester of pregnancy as acceptable, with potential to positively impact patient outcomes.
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.