Jenny McLeish 1 , Fiona Alderdice 1 , Helen Robberts 2 , Christina Cole 1 , Jon Dorling 3 , Chris Gale 4 . Show Affiliations »
Abstract
Show RCT »
Hide RCT «
BACKGROUND: More effective recruitment strategies like alternative approaches to consent are needed to facilitate adequately powered trials. Witholding Enteral feeds Around Transfusion was a multicentre, randomised, pilot trial that compared withholding and continuing feeds around transfusion. The primary clinical outcome was necrotising enterocolitis . The trial used simplified opt -out consent with concise parent information and no consent form. OBJECTIVE: To explore the views and experiences of parents and health professionals on the acceptability and feasibility of opt -out consent in randomised comparative effectiveness trials. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive interview-based study nested within a randomised trial. Semistructured interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. SETTING: Eleven neonatal units in England. PARTICIPANTS : Eleven parents and ten health professionals with experience of simplified consent. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: 'opt -out consent operationalised as verbal opt -in consent', 'opt -out consent normalises participation while preserving parental choice', 'opt -out consent as an ongoing process of informed choice', 'consent without a consent form' and 'choosing to opt out of a comparative effectiveness trial', with two subthemes: 'wanting "normal care"' and 'a belief that feeding is better'. CONCLUSION: Introducing a novel form of consent proved challenging in practice. The principle of a simplified, opt -out approach to consent was generally considered feasible and acceptable by health professionals for a neonatal comparative effectiveness trial. The priority for parents was having the right to decide about trial participation, and they did not see opt -out consent as undermining this. Describing a study as 'opt -out' can help to normalise participation and emphasise that parents can withdraw consent. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Entities: CellLine
Disease
Gene
Species
Keywords:
ethics; neonatology; qualitative research
Year: 2020
PMID: 33139313 DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319545
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed ISSN: 1359-2998 Impact factor: 5.747