Literature DB >> 9351153

Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial.

C Snowdon1, J Garcia, D Elbourne.   

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted by the scientific community as the most rigorous way of evaluating interventions in health care. Although their central feature, random allocation of treatment, is generally seen as methodologically appropriate, its application has caused much debate amongst health professionals and ethicists. This paper describes the views of parents who consented that their critically ill newborn baby should be enrolled in a neonatal trial. In-depth interviews were used to determine their response to the trial and randomization. The nature of the trial was often poorly understood. The random basis of the allocation of treatment and the rationale behind this approach were also problematic issues. Some parents did not perceive a random element in the process at all. These findings advance understanding of the perceptions of trial participants and raise important issues for those concerned with RCTs. Greater understanding of participants' views provides the potential to improve the management of future trials and so the experience of those agreeing to take part.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9351153     DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00063-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  98 in total

1.  Trial experience and problems of parental recollection of consent.

Authors:  D Elbourne; C Snowdon; J Garcia; D Field
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-06

2.  Should Zelen pre-randomised consent designs be used in some neonatal trials?

Authors:  P Allmark
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Presumed consent in emergency neonatal research.

Authors:  D J Manning
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Obtaining consent for neonatal research.

Authors:  P Allmark; S Mason; A B Gill; C Megone
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.747

5.  What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers.

Authors:  Christopher Bartlett; Jonathan Sterne; Matthias Egger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-07-13

6.  Consent for clinical research in the neonatal intensive care unit: a retrospective survey and a prospective study.

Authors:  E Burgess; N Singhal; H Amin; D D McMillan; H Devrome
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.747

7.  Neonatal research: the parental perspective.

Authors:  B J Stenson; J-C Becher; N McIntosh
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.747

8.  Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: attitudes of bereaved parents.

Authors:  C Snowdon; D R Elbourne; J Garcia
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.747

9.  Frontline ethical issues in pediatric clinical research: ethical and regulatory aspects of seven current bottlenecks in pediatric clinical research.

Authors:  Wim Pinxten; Herman Nys; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 3.183

10.  Participating in a trial in a critical situation: a qualitative study in pregnancy.

Authors:  S Kenyon; M Dixon-Woods; C J Jackson; K Windridge; E Pitchforth
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2006-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.