Literature DB >> 15152271

Neonatal research and the validity of informed consent obtained in the perinatal period.

Hubert O Ballard1, Lori A Shook, Nirmala S Desai, K J S Anand.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Consent for participation in clinical research is considered valid if it is informed, understood, and voluntary. In the case of minors, parents give permission for their child to participate in research studies after being presented with all information needed to make an informed decision. Although informed consent is a vital component of clinical research, there is little information evaluating its validity in neonatal intensive-care populations. The objective of this project was to determine the validity of informed consent obtained from parents of infants enrolled in the multicenter randomized research study, neurologic outcomes and pre-emptive analgesia in the neonate (NEOPAIN). DESIGN/
METHODS: Parents of infants who survived to discharge and had signed consent for their newborn to participate in the NEOPAIN study at the University of Kentucky were asked 20 open-ended questions to determine their level of understanding about the NEOPAIN study. The NEOPAIN consent form, which had been approved by the University of Kentucky Medical Institutional Review Board (IRB), was used to formulate these questions. Questions addressed the timing of consent, parental understanding of the purpose, benefits, and risks of the study, the voluntary nature of the project, and their willingness to enroll in future studies if the opportunity presented. Answers were scored on a Likert scale, with 1 for no understanding and 5 for complete understanding.
RESULTS: Five of 64 parents (7.8%) had no recollection of the NEOPAIN study or of signing consent. Of those who remembered the study, only 67.8% understood the purpose of the study, with a higher proportion of the mothers than fathers knowing the purpose of the study (73.3% vs 57.1%), (p=0.029). Of those who understood the purpose of the study 95% were able to verbalize the benefits, but only 5% understood any potential risks. No parents reported feeling pressured or coerced to sign consent for the project and all parents reported they would enroll their child in additional studies if asked.
CONCLUSIONS: Valid consent in the antenatal/perinatal population is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. To maximize validity of consent in the antenatal/perinatal population every effort should be made to include mothers in the consent process. Additional attention during the consent process should be given to possible risks of the study.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15152271     DOI: 10.1038/sj.jp.7211142

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Perinatol        ISSN: 0743-8346            Impact factor:   2.521


  21 in total

Review 1.  Ethical aspects of clinical research with minors.

Authors:  Wendy Bos; Krista Tromp; Dick Tibboel; Wim Pinxten
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 3.183

2.  Mothers of babies enrolled in a randomized trial immediately after birth report a positive experience.

Authors:  D L Harris; P J Weston; J E Harding
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 2.521

Review 3.  When is waiver of consent appropriate in a neonatal clinical trial?

Authors:  Mark S Schreiner; Dalia Feltman; Thomas Wiswell; Susan Wootton; Cody Arnold; Jon Tyson; John D Lantos
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-10-06       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 4.  Ethics of drug research in the pediatric intensive care unit.

Authors:  Niina Kleiber; Krista Tromp; Miriam G Mooij; Suzanne van de Vathorst; Dick Tibboel; Saskia N de Wildt
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.022

5.  Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Elliott Mark Weiss; Katherine F Guttmann; Aleksandra E Olszewski; Brooke E Magnus; Sijia Li; Scott Y H Kim; Anita R Shah; Sandra E Juul; Yvonne W Wu; Kaashif A Ahmad; Ellen Bendel-Stenzel; Natalia A Isaza; Andrea L Lampland; Amit M Mathur; Rakesh Rao; David Riley; David G Russell; Zeynep N I Salih; Carrie B Torr; Joern-Hendrik Weitkamp; Uchenna E Anani; Taeun Chang; Juanita Dudley; John Flibotte; Erin M Havrilla; Alexandra C O'Kane; Krystle Perez; Brenda J Stanley; Seema K Shah; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2021-08-14       Impact factor: 4.406

6.  Maternal Perceptions of Safeguards for Research Involving Children.

Authors:  Maryam Rostami; Jane Paik Kim; Laura Turner-Essel; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  J Child Fam Stud       Date:  2021-08-07

7.  Education in health research methodology: use of a wiki for knowledge translation.

Authors:  Michele P Hamm; Terry P Klassen; Shannon D Scott; David Moher; Lisa Hartling
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Parental permission and child assent in research on children.

Authors:  Michelle Roth-Cline; Robert M Nelson
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2013-09-20

9.  Communication about children's clinical trials as observed and experienced: qualitative study of parents and practitioners.

Authors:  Valerie Shilling; Paula R Williamson; Helen Hickey; Emma Sowden; Michael W Beresford; Rosalind L Smyth; Bridget Young
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Do health care institutions value research? A mixed methods study of barriers and facilitators to methodological rigor in pediatric randomized trials.

Authors:  Michele P Hamm; Shannon D Scott; Terry P Klassen; David Moher; Lisa Hartling
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.