Cargando…

A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research

BACKGROUND: There is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van der Zande, Indira S. E., van der Graaf, Rieke, Oudijk, Martijn A., van Delden, Johannes J. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5432995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28506267
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0194-9
_version_ 1783236754338217984
author van der Zande, Indira S. E.
van der Graaf, Rieke
Oudijk, Martijn A.
van Delden, Johannes J. M.
author_facet van der Zande, Indira S. E.
van der Graaf, Rieke
Oudijk, Martijn A.
van Delden, Johannes J. M.
author_sort van der Zande, Indira S. E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study. METHODS: We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Three themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals’ individual perception of risk may influence recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5432995
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54329952017-05-17 A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research van der Zande, Indira S. E. van der Graaf, Rieke Oudijk, Martijn A. van Delden, Johannes J. M. BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: There is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study. METHODS: We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Three themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals’ individual perception of risk may influence recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women. BioMed Central 2017-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5432995/ /pubmed/28506267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0194-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
van der Zande, Indira S. E.
van der Graaf, Rieke
Oudijk, Martijn A.
van Delden, Johannes J. M.
A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research
title A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research
title_full A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research
title_fullStr A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research
title_full_unstemmed A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research
title_short A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research
title_sort qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5432995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28506267
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0194-9
work_keys_str_mv AT vanderzandeindirase aqualitativestudyonacceptablelevelsofriskforpregnantwomeninclinicalresearch
AT vandergraafrieke aqualitativestudyonacceptablelevelsofriskforpregnantwomeninclinicalresearch
AT oudijkmartijna aqualitativestudyonacceptablelevelsofriskforpregnantwomeninclinicalresearch
AT vandeldenjohannesjm aqualitativestudyonacceptablelevelsofriskforpregnantwomeninclinicalresearch
AT vanderzandeindirase qualitativestudyonacceptablelevelsofriskforpregnantwomeninclinicalresearch
AT vandergraafrieke qualitativestudyonacceptablelevelsofriskforpregnantwomeninclinicalresearch
AT oudijkmartijna qualitativestudyonacceptablelevelsofriskforpregnantwomeninclinicalresearch
AT vandeldenjohannesjm qualitativestudyonacceptablelevelsofriskforpregnantwomeninclinicalresearch