Literature DB >> 24987820

Death, bereavement and randomised controlled trials (BRACELET): a methodological study of policy and practice in neonatal and paediatric intensive care trials.

Claire Snowdon1, Peter Brocklehurst2, Robert Tasker3, Martin Ward Platt4, Sheila Harvey1, Diana Elbourne1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Researchers have seldom included bereaved parents in studies of participants' views of randomised controlled trials (RCTs); hence our understanding of the impact of trials is based on skewed and incomplete samples. Little is known about parental experiences of the death of a child subsequent to their enrolment in a trial or of provision made for this experience by clinicians and trial teams. The Bereavement and RAndomised ControlLEd Trials (BRACELET) study was funded to consider bereavement in the context of paediatric intensive care (PIC) and neonatal intensive care (NIC) trials. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study comprised three interlinked components: a quantitative survey of RCT activity in UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), UK RCT recruitment and mortality rates, and provision for bereavement during 2002-6; a qualitative interview study involving 51 bereaved parents and 59 clinicians and trial team members associated with five neonatal trials; and a methodological study to inform future research.
RESULTS: Fifty RCTs were identified as having enrolled babies or children from 2002 to 2006. Approximately 50% of UK NICUs and PICUs (54 NICUs, six PICUs) participated in at least one of these trials. Collectively they enrolled over 3000 children. Most enrolled small numbers, the majority of participants being enrolled by a small group of academic medical units. The proportion of deaths following trial enrolment was 17% in NIC trials and 6% in PIC trials. The qualitative study showed that trial-related decisions were made in a range of circumstances, some after extremely preterm births, others after complicated term deliveries, often under time pressures and in escalating crises. Parents' interest in trials appeared to recede initially but could re-emerge over time. They often valued opportunities to engage with a trial and were interested in more contact and information than they actually received. Clinicians often saw NICU bereavement policies as meeting parental needs, and trial participation as being of relatively minor significance in bereavement. This view may result from the positioning of clinicians' encounters with parents only in the initial stages of grief when trials were not a priority. Trial teams used a range of bereavement strategies, from no further contact to a pioneering multipart follow-up package. Communication with bereaved parents was complicated by limited contact opportunities. Trial teams were obliged to work without knowing whether their communications were appreciated, were problematic, or even whether they were received by parents. The methodological component highlighted strategies for recruitment and data collection in this sensitive setting. Recruitment by unsupported postal contact generally failed and a more personal approach via clinicians was more effective, supplemented by publicity material distributed via trusted organisations.
CONCLUSIONS: A co-ordinated response to bereavement is as much a part of the running of trials as recruitment, and needs to be considered at trial inception. BRACELET has demonstrated the value and feasibility of research with bereaved parents involved in NIC trials. In order to respond to bereavement in a fair and sensitive way, as well as to better inform the design of RCTs, it is crucial that we listen to bereaved parents and evaluate new methods for so doing. More research is therefore needed into the experiences of bereavement subsequent to trial enrolment, with study of bereavement strategies in NIC trials as they are introduced. In addition, future studies should determine whether parents and triallists in PIC trials (and trials in adults) face the same issues as in NIC trials. Careful studies are necessary to explore how feedback of trial results are received and understood by bereaved and non-bereaved parents, and how individual trial teams manage this situation. An additional research area for exploring experiences of parenting twins and higher-order births in trials arose from BRACELET. Developmental research should continue to explore means of involving a wider range of parents in future research, including via publicity and specialist websites. Finally, methodological research is needed to ensure that we have the tools to explore, with parents and other relatives, as partners in research, a range of trial-related topics, which might be challenging, as the information is complex or the focus is sensitive. FUNDING: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24987820      PMCID: PMC4781192          DOI: 10.3310/hta18420

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  12 in total

Review 1.  Clinical trials of medicines in neonates: the influence of ethical and practical issues on design and conduct.

Authors:  Mark A Turner
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Jessica Wood; Seonaidh C Cotton; Katie Gillies
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 3.318

3.  Fifteen-minute consultation: an evidence-based approach to research without prior consent (deferred consent) in neonatal and paediatric critical care trials.

Authors:  Kerry Woolfall; Lucy Frith; Angus Dawson; Carrol Gamble; Mark D Lyttle; Bridget Young
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 1.309

4.  Factors affecting uptake of postmortem examination in the prenatal, perinatal and paediatric setting.

Authors:  C Lewis; M Hill; O J Arthurs; C Hutchinson; L S Chitty; N J Sebire
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 6.531

5.  How parents and practitioners experience research without prior consent (deferred consent) for emergency research involving children with life threatening conditions: a mixed method study.

Authors:  Kerry Woolfall; Lucy Frith; Carrol Gamble; Ruth Gilbert; Quen Mok; Bridget Young
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials.

Authors:  Claire Snowdon
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Recruiting and consenting into a peripartum trial in an emergency setting: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of women and healthcare professionals.

Authors:  Julia Lawton; Claire Snowdon; Susan Morrow; Jane E Norman; Fiona C Denison; Nina Hallowell
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  'We knew it was a totally at random thing': parents' experiences of being part of a neonatal trial.

Authors:  Merryl Harvey; Phumza Nongena; David Edwards; Maggie Redshaw
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  "You have to keep your nerve on a DMC." Challenges for Data Monitoring Committees in neonatal intensive care trials: Qualitative accounts from the BRACELET Study.

Authors:  Claire Snowdon; Peter Brocklehurst; Robert C Tasker; Martin Ward Platt; Diana Elbourne
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Parent, patient and clinician perceptions of outcomes during and following neonatal care: a systematic review of qualitative research.

Authors:  James Webbe; Ginny Brunton; Shohaib Ali; Nicholas Longford; Neena Modi; Chris Gale
Journal:  BMJ Paediatr Open       Date:  2018-10-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.