影响孕妇和哺乳期妇女参与临床试验的因素:混合方法系统综述。

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-30 eCollection Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004405
Mridula Shankar, Alya Hazfiarini, Rana Islamiah Zahroh, Joshua P Vogel, Annie R A McDougall, Patrick Condron, Shivaprasad S Goudar, Yeshita V Pujar, Manjunath S Somannavar, Umesh Charantimath, Anne Ammerdorffer, Sara Rushwan, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Meghan A Bohren
{"title":"影响孕妇和哺乳期妇女参与临床试验的因素:混合方法系统综述。","authors":"Mridula Shankar, Alya Hazfiarini, Rana Islamiah Zahroh, Joshua P Vogel, Annie R A McDougall, Patrick Condron, Shivaprasad S Goudar, Yeshita V Pujar, Manjunath S Somannavar, Umesh Charantimath, Anne Ammerdorffer, Sara Rushwan, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Meghan A Bohren","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal-fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11139290/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors influencing the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials: A mixed-methods systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Mridula Shankar, Alya Hazfiarini, Rana Islamiah Zahroh, Joshua P Vogel, Annie R A McDougall, Patrick Condron, Shivaprasad S Goudar, Yeshita V Pujar, Manjunath S Somannavar, Umesh Charantimath, Anne Ammerdorffer, Sara Rushwan, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Meghan A Bohren\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004405\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal-fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11139290/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004405\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004405","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:孕妇和哺乳期妇女及人群在临床试验中的代表性较低,这使得她们所关注的健康问题被边缘化,并剥夺了治疗研发创新所带来的母胎/婴儿双方面的益处。这项混合方法的系统性综述综合了影响孕妇和哺乳期妇女参与临床试验的因素,涉及研究生态系统的各个层面:我们检索了从开始到 2024 年 2 月 14 日的 8 个数据库,以确定描述影响孕妇和哺乳期妇女在任何环境下参与疫苗和治疗临床试验的因素的定性、定量和混合方法研究。我们采用专题综合法对定性文献进行了分析,并采用 GRADE-CERQual 法评估了每项定性综述结论的可信度。我们将定量数据与专题综述结果进行比较,以评估趋同或分歧的领域。我们将综述结果与理论领域框架 (TDF) 和行为能力、机会和动机模型 (COM-B) 相结合,为今后制定行为改变策略提供参考。我们收录了来自 27 个国家的 60 篇论文。我们将 24 项综述结果归纳为 5 大主题:(a) 妇女参与决策的风险感知与收益之间的相互作用;(b) 妇女与医疗和研究生态系统之间的互动;(c) 性别规范与决策自主权;(d) 影响临床试验招募的因素;以及 (e) 研究生态系统中的上游因素。妇女参与试验的意愿受到以下因素的影响:根据干预措施的风险和益处权衡健康状况的感知风险、治疗乐观主义、干预措施的可接受性、期望在试验中获得更高质量的护理、利他动机、亲密关系动态以及权力和对医学与研究的信任。当医护人员认为临床不存在问题、对新的治疗方法抱有希望并确信干预措施是安全的,他们就会支持妇女参与试验。对于研究人员来说,与医护人员建立互惠关系、获得试验实施所需的资源、确保潜在参与者和医护人员了解试验、在与潜在参与者沟通时采用以女性为中心的方法以及对试验的情感取向,都是影响招募的因素。对于研究调查人员和伦理委员会来说,风险评估和试验设计的复杂性和主观性,以及此类试验的资金有限,都是他们不愿领导和批准此类试验的原因。所有纳入的研究都侧重于影响顺性别孕妇参与临床试验的因素;未来的研究应考虑其他可怀孕人群,包括变性人和非二元性人群:本系统综述强调了影响孕妇和哺乳期妇女参与临床试验的多个层面和利益相关者的各种因素。通过将已识别的因素与行为改变框架联系起来,我们制定了具有理论依据的策略,有助于优化孕妇和哺乳期妇女在此类试验中的参与度、参与度和信任度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Factors influencing the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Background: Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal-fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem.

Methods and findings: We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people.

Conclusions: This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
期刊最新文献
A comprehensive assessment of care competence and maternal experience of first antenatal care visits in Mexico: Insights from the baseline survey of an observational cohort study. Variability in performance of genetic-enhanced DXA-BMD prediction models across diverse ethnic and geographic populations: A risk prediction study. Comparison of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation using the UK clinical practice research Datalink Aurum: A reference trial (ARISTOTLE) emulation study. Using real-world evidence to complement evidence from randomized controlled trials on oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention. Antenatal care quality and detection of risk among pregnant women: An observational study in Ethiopia, India, Kenya, and South Africa.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1