Literature DB >> 29373261

Facilitators and barriers to pregnant women's participation in research: A systematic review.

Indira S E van der Zande1, Rieke van der Graaf2, Lotty Hooft3, Johannes J M van Delden4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although there is consensus among many that exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research should be justified, there is uncertainty as to whether and why pregnant women themselves would be willing to participate even if they were found to be eligible. The objective was to identify the reasons why pregnant women participate in clinical research and thereby to distinguish between facilitators and barriers.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of articles regarding pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We used the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and retrieved additional articles through manually searching the reference lists. We included all articles that reported on pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We accumulated all reasons that were mentioned in the total of articles and collated them to themes, classifying these themes as a facilitator or a barrier.
RESULTS: The search identified thirty articles that met the inclusion criteria. Themes classified as facilitators: aspirational benefits, collateral benefits, direct benefits, third party influence and lack of inconvenience. Themes classified as barriers: inconveniences, risks, randomisation, lack of trust in research enterprise, medical reasons and third party influence.
CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women report mostly altruistic and personal reasons for their willingness to participate in clinical research, while barriers primarily relate to inconveniences. It appears that pregnant women's described reasoning is similar to the described reasoning of non-pregnant research subjects. Enhancing the facilitators and overcoming the barriers is the next step to increase the evidence-base underlying maternal and foetal health.
Copyright © 2017 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical research; Pregnant women; Recruitment; Systematic review; Willingness

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29373261     DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.12.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Women Birth        ISSN: 1871-5192            Impact factor:   3.172


  19 in total

1.  Reasons Why Pregnant Women Participate in Ultrasound Research Involving Transvaginal Scans.

Authors:  Barbara T Meagher; Marissa R Campos; Patrick Thornton; Carrie Klima; Tara A Peters; Josefin Hallberg; Emma Ulfhager; William D O'Brien; Barbara L McFarlin
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 2.153

2.  Motivators and barriers towards clinical research participation: A population-based survey from an Arab MENA country.

Authors:  Kamal M Al-Shami; Wesam S Ahmed; Karem H Alzoubi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 3.  Recruitment and retention of pregnant women in prospective birth cohort studies: A scoping review and content analysis of the literature.

Authors:  Ellen Goldstein; Ludmila N Bakhireva; Kendra Nervik; Shelbey Hagen; Alyssa Turnquist; Aleksandra E Zgierska; Lidia Enriquez Marquez; Ryan McDonald; Jamie Lo; Christina Chambers
Journal:  Neurotoxicol Teratol       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.763

4.  The effect of remuneration schedule on data completion and retention in the pregnancy eating attributes study (PEAS).

Authors:  Ndeah Terry; Leah M Lipsky; Anna Maria Siega-Riz; Aiyi Liu; Tonja R Nansel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  A Learning Healthcare System for pregnant and breastfeeding women: what do women during preconception, pregnancy, and nursing think? - A qualitative study : A contribution from the ConcePTION project.

Authors:  Marieke J Hollestelle; Rieke van der Graaf; Sarah Dewi Hartman; Miriam C J M Sturkenboom; Johannes J M van Delden
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-04-18       Impact factor: 3.105

6.  Women's experiences of participating in a randomised trial comparing alternative policies for timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth: a questionnaire study.

Authors:  Lucy Bradshaw; Alexandra Sawyer; Eleanor Mitchell; Lindsay Armstrong-Buisseret; Susan Ayers; Lelia Duley
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  The willingness to participate in biomedical research involving human beings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joyce L Browne; Connie O Rees; Johannes J M van Delden; Irene Agyepong; Diederick E Grobbee; Ama Edwin; Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch; Rieke van der Graaf
Journal:  Trop Med Int Health       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 8.  Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators.

Authors:  Rebecca Sheridan; Jacqueline Martin-Kerry; Joanna Hudson; Adwoa Parker; Peter Bower; Peter Knapp
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Views among Malawian women about joining HIV prevention clinical trials when pregnant.

Authors:  Kristen Sullivan; Tiwonge Mtande; Elana Jaffe; Nora Rosenberg; Chifundo Zimba; Irving Hoffman; Maggie Little; Ruth Faden; Anne Drapkin Lyerly
Journal:  AIDS Res Ther       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 2.250

Review 10.  Sepsis: Precision-Based Medicine for Pregnancy and the Puerperium.

Authors:  Orene Greer; Nishel Mohan Shah; Shiranee Sriskandan; Mark R Johnson
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.