父母对预期同意的看法:围产期极早产儿试点随机试验的经验。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS Journal of paediatrics and child health Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1111/jpc.16645
Hannah Skelton, Traci-Anne Goyen, Patricia Viola, James Marceau, Daphne D'Cruz, Rajesh Maheshwari, Dharmesh Shah, Bronwyn Edney, Melissa Luig, Pranav R Jani
{"title":"父母对预期同意的看法:围产期极早产儿试点随机试验的经验。","authors":"Hannah Skelton,&nbsp;Traci-Anne Goyen,&nbsp;Patricia Viola,&nbsp;James Marceau,&nbsp;Daphne D'Cruz,&nbsp;Rajesh Maheshwari,&nbsp;Dharmesh Shah,&nbsp;Bronwyn Edney,&nbsp;Melissa Luig,&nbsp;Pranav R Jani","doi":"10.1111/jpc.16645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To explore parental perceptions of the consenting process and understanding of the study in a pilot randomised controlled trial wherein extremely premature infants (&lt;29 weeks' gestation) were recruited either antenatally or by 4 h of life.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We prospectively surveyed parents who had consented, declined consent or were eligible infants in the Positioning Preterm Infants for Neuroprotection study, a low-risk intervention study in the first 72 h of life. Structured interview questions explored the process and acceptability of the consenting approach by the parents and their knowledge of the study. Additional comments made by the parents were transcribed verbatim.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Sixty-two parents participated in the surveys; of those, 41 had provided their consent, 8 declined consent and 13 were parents of missed eligible infants. Overall, most parents reported they understood the study well before providing their consent and approaching them for consenting did not create a burden for them. A verbal explanation of the study by the study team, especially by the medical practitioners, was viewed as beneficial. Where consent was obtained in the birthing unit (imminent births and within 4 h of birthing), it was suggested that the 4-h period for obtaining post-natal consent may be too short. A deferred consent with a follow-up opportunity for obtaining informed consent could be a suitable alternative.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Parents found the consenting process acceptable and indicated they had sufficient understanding of the study to provide an informed consent. Deferred consent should be explored for future, low-risk intervention studies as an alternative to prospective consent where extremely preterm infants need to be recruited in the immediate neonatal period.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16648,"journal":{"name":"Journal of paediatrics and child health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpc.16645","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parental views on prospective consent: Experience from a pilot randomised trial recruiting extremely preterm infants during the perinatal period\",\"authors\":\"Hannah Skelton,&nbsp;Traci-Anne Goyen,&nbsp;Patricia Viola,&nbsp;James Marceau,&nbsp;Daphne D'Cruz,&nbsp;Rajesh Maheshwari,&nbsp;Dharmesh Shah,&nbsp;Bronwyn Edney,&nbsp;Melissa Luig,&nbsp;Pranav R Jani\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jpc.16645\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To explore parental perceptions of the consenting process and understanding of the study in a pilot randomised controlled trial wherein extremely premature infants (&lt;29 weeks' gestation) were recruited either antenatally or by 4 h of life.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We prospectively surveyed parents who had consented, declined consent or were eligible infants in the Positioning Preterm Infants for Neuroprotection study, a low-risk intervention study in the first 72 h of life. Structured interview questions explored the process and acceptability of the consenting approach by the parents and their knowledge of the study. Additional comments made by the parents were transcribed verbatim.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Sixty-two parents participated in the surveys; of those, 41 had provided their consent, 8 declined consent and 13 were parents of missed eligible infants. Overall, most parents reported they understood the study well before providing their consent and approaching them for consenting did not create a burden for them. A verbal explanation of the study by the study team, especially by the medical practitioners, was viewed as beneficial. Where consent was obtained in the birthing unit (imminent births and within 4 h of birthing), it was suggested that the 4-h period for obtaining post-natal consent may be too short. A deferred consent with a follow-up opportunity for obtaining informed consent could be a suitable alternative.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Parents found the consenting process acceptable and indicated they had sufficient understanding of the study to provide an informed consent. Deferred consent should be explored for future, low-risk intervention studies as an alternative to prospective consent where extremely preterm infants need to be recruited in the immediate neonatal period.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of paediatrics and child health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpc.16645\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of paediatrics and child health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpc.16645\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of paediatrics and child health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpc.16645","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在一项针对极早产儿的试点随机对照试验中,探讨父母对同意过程的看法和对研究的理解(方法:我们对同意或拒绝同意的父母进行了前瞻性调查,或对符合早产儿神经保护定位研究条件的父母进行了前瞻性调查:我们对同意、拒绝同意或符合早产儿神经保护定位研究条件的婴儿父母进行了前瞻性调查,这是一项在婴儿出生后 72 小时内进行的低风险干预研究。结构化访谈问题探讨了同意的过程、父母对同意方式的接受程度以及他们对研究的了解程度。此外,还逐字记录了家长的其他意见:62名家长参与了调查,其中41名家长表示同意,8名家长拒绝同意,13名家长为漏报婴儿的家长。总体而言,大多数家长表示,他们在表示同意之前已经充分了解了这项研究,而且在征得他们同意时并没有给他们造成负担。研究小组(尤其是医务人员)对研究的口头解释被认为是有益的。在分娩室征得同意的情况下(即将分娩和分娩后 4 小时内),有人认为产后 4 小时征得同意的时间可能太短。结论:父母认为同意程序是可以接受的:结论:父母认为同意过程是可以接受的,并表示他们对研究有足够的了解,可以提供知情同意。在未来的低风险干预研究中,如果需要在新生儿期立即招募极早产儿,则应探讨延迟同意,以替代预期同意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Parental views on prospective consent: Experience from a pilot randomised trial recruiting extremely preterm infants during the perinatal period

Aim

To explore parental perceptions of the consenting process and understanding of the study in a pilot randomised controlled trial wherein extremely premature infants (<29 weeks' gestation) were recruited either antenatally or by 4 h of life.

Methods

We prospectively surveyed parents who had consented, declined consent or were eligible infants in the Positioning Preterm Infants for Neuroprotection study, a low-risk intervention study in the first 72 h of life. Structured interview questions explored the process and acceptability of the consenting approach by the parents and their knowledge of the study. Additional comments made by the parents were transcribed verbatim.

Results

Sixty-two parents participated in the surveys; of those, 41 had provided their consent, 8 declined consent and 13 were parents of missed eligible infants. Overall, most parents reported they understood the study well before providing their consent and approaching them for consenting did not create a burden for them. A verbal explanation of the study by the study team, especially by the medical practitioners, was viewed as beneficial. Where consent was obtained in the birthing unit (imminent births and within 4 h of birthing), it was suggested that the 4-h period for obtaining post-natal consent may be too short. A deferred consent with a follow-up opportunity for obtaining informed consent could be a suitable alternative.

Conclusion

Parents found the consenting process acceptable and indicated they had sufficient understanding of the study to provide an informed consent. Deferred consent should be explored for future, low-risk intervention studies as an alternative to prospective consent where extremely preterm infants need to be recruited in the immediate neonatal period.

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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
487
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health publishes original research articles of scientific excellence in paediatrics and child health. Research Articles, Case Reports and Letters to the Editor are published, together with invited Reviews, Annotations, Editorial Comments and manuscripts of educational interest.
期刊最新文献
Paediatric oral and maxillofacial biopsies: A retrospective institutional archival study. Letter to the Editor. Long-term outcomes and quality of life in congenital diaphragmatic hernia survivors treated with extracorporeal life support: A cross-sectional survey. Antenatal counselling at the cusp of viability and parental decision-making in the zone of parental discretion: A cohort study. A case of thyroid storm in a child associated with transient central diabetes insipidus.
×
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