Jane Stuart1, Jacqueline Barnes2, Helen Spiby3, Diana Elbourne4. 1. Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX, UK. Electronic address: j.stuart@bbk.ac.uk. 2. Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX, UK. Electronic address: jacqueline.barnes@bbk.ac.uk. 3. School of Health Sciences, 12th Floor, Tower Building, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. Electronic address: helen.spiby@nottingham.ac.uk. 4. Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. Electronic address: Diana.elbourne@lshtm.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to explore barriers to the involvement of community midwives in identifying women in early pregnancy as potential participants in the first steps study, a randomised controlled trial of a new intervention to provide health and parenting supportto potentially vulnerable women. DESIGN: descriptive qualitative investigation using semi-structured audio-recorded interviews. SETTING: community midwifery offices. PARTICIPANTS: volunteer sample of 13 community midwives. MEASUREMENT: themes derived from content analysis. FINDINGS: understanding of their role in the research process was unclear to many midwives. Confusion arose about the difference between potential participant identification and trial recruitment. There were concerns about the eligibility criteria and it was suggested that there was insufficient time during booking appointments, and sometimes insufficient information, to determine potential eligibility. Midwives had concerns about some aspects of the intervention, which incorporated routine midwifery care, and had expectations that women may not like a group programme. This may have led some not to mention the trial. They were, however positive about the programme׳s potential for beneficial impacts on mothers and infants. KEY CONCLUSIONS: dedicated research midwives may be the best option if research studies need to identify potential participants early in pregnancy, so that they can communicate with all their colleagues. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: if community midwives are asked to be involved in time-critical research they are likely to need additional local resources and support.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: to explore barriers to the involvement of community midwives in identifying women in early pregnancy as potential participants in the first steps study, a randomised controlled trial of a new intervention to provide health and parenting support to potentially vulnerable women. DESIGN: descriptive qualitative investigation using semi-structured audio-recorded interviews. SETTING: community midwifery offices. PARTICIPANTS: volunteer sample of 13 community midwives. MEASUREMENT: themes derived from content analysis. FINDINGS: understanding of their role in the research process was unclear to many midwives. Confusion arose about the difference between potential participant identification and trial recruitment. There were concerns about the eligibility criteria and it was suggested that there was insufficient time during booking appointments, and sometimes insufficient information, to determine potential eligibility. Midwives had concerns about some aspects of the intervention, which incorporated routine midwifery care, and had expectations that women may not like a group programme. This may have led some not to mention the trial. They were, however positive about the programme׳s potential for beneficial impacts on mothers and infants. KEY CONCLUSIONS: dedicated research midwives may be the best option if research studies need to identify potential participants early in pregnancy, so that they can communicate with all their colleagues. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: if community midwives are asked to be involved in time-critical research they are likely to need additional local resources and support.
Authors: Ciara Close; Marlene Sinclair; Julie E M McCullough; Sarah Dianne Liddle; Ciara M Hughes Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2016-11-13 Impact factor: 2.629