Balancing key stakeholder priorities and ethical principles to design a trial comparing intervention or expectant management for early-onset selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancy: FERN qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: As part of the FERN feasibility study, this qualitative research aimed to explore parents' and clinicians' views on the acceptability, feasibility and design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of active intervention versus expectant management in monochorionic (MC) diamniotic twin pregnancies with early-onset (prior to 24 weeks) selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR). Interventions could include laser treatment or selective termination which could lead to the death or serious disability of one or both twins. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with parents and clinicians. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and considered against the Principles of Biomedical Ethics. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: We interviewed 19 UK parents experiencing (six mothers, two partners) or had recently experienced (eight mothers, three partners) early-onset sFGR in MC twin pregnancy and 14 specialist clinicians from the UK and Europe. RESULTS: Participants viewed the proposed RCT as 'ethically murky' because they believed that the management of sFGR in MC twin pregnancy should be individualised according to the type and severity of sFGR. Clinicians prioritised the gestational age, size, decrease in growth velocity, access to the placental vessels and acceptability of intervention for parents. Discussions and decision-making about selective termination appeared to cause long-term harm (maleficence). The most important outcome for parents and clinicians was 'live birth'. For clinicians, this was the live birth of at least one twin. For parents, this meant the live birth of both twins, even if this meant that their babies had neurodevelopmental impairment or disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: All three pregnancy management approaches for sFGR in MC twin pregnancy carry risks and benefits, and the ultimate goal for parents is to receive individualised care to achieve the best possible outcome for both twins. An RCT was not acceptable to parents or clinicians or seen as ethically appropriate. Alternative study designs should be considered to answer this important research question.

FERN: is it possible to conduct a randomised controlled trial of intervention or expectant management for early-onset selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancy - protocol for a prospective multicentre mixed-methods feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) in monochorionic twin pregnancy, defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) of one twin <10th centile and EFW discordance ≥25%, is associated with stillbirth and neurodisability for both twins. The condition poses unique management difficulties: on the one hand, continuation of the pregnancy carries a risk of death of the smaller twin, with a high risk of co-twin demise (40%) or co-twin neurological sequelae (30%). On the other, early delivery to prevent the death of the smaller twin may expose the larger twin to prematurity, with the associated risks of long-term physical, emotional and financial costs from neurodisability, such as cerebral palsy.When there is severe and early sFGR, before viability, delivery is not an option. In this scenario, there are currently three main management options: (1) expectant management, (2) selective termination of the smaller twin and (3) placental laser photocoagulation of interconnecting vessels. These management options have never been investigated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The best management option is unknown, and there are many challenges for a potential RCT. These include the rarity of the condition resulting in a small number of eligible pregnancies, uncertainty about whether pregnant women will agree to participate in such a trial and whether they will agree to be randomised to expectant management or active fetal intervention, and the challenges of robust and long-term outcome measures. Therefore, the main objective of the FERN study is to assess the feasibility of conducting an RCT of active intervention vs expectant management in monochorionic twin pregnancies with early-onset (prior to 24 weeks) sFGR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FERN study is a prospective mixed-methods feasibility study. The primary objective is to recommend whether an RCT of intervention vs expectant management of sFGR in monochorionic twin pregnancy is feasible by exploring women's preference, clinician's preference, current practice and equipoise and numbers of cases. To achieve this, we propose three distinct work packages (WPs). WP1: A Prospective UK Multicentre Study, WP2A: a Qualitative Study Exploring Parents' and Clinicians' Views and WP3: a Consensus Development to Determine Feasibility of a Trial. Eligible pregnancies will be recruited to WP1 and WP2, which will run concurrently. The results of these two WPs will be used in WP3 to develop consensus on a future definitive study. The duration of the study will be 53 months, composed of 10 months of setup, 39 months of recruitment, 42 months of data collection, and 5 months of data analysis, report writing and recommendations. The pragmatic sample size for WP1 is 100 monochorionic twin pregnancies with sFGR. For WP2, interviews will be conducted until data saturation and sample variance are achieved, that is, when no new major themes are being discovered. Based on previous similar pilot studies, this is anticipated to be approximately 15-25 interviews in both the parent and clinician groups. Engagement of at least 50 UK clinicians is planned for WP3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethical approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) South West-Cornwall and Plymouth Ethics Committee (REC reference 20/SW/0156, IRAS ID 286337). All participating sites will undergo site-specific approvals for assessment of capacity and capability by the HRA. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. The results from the FERN project will be used to inform future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is included in the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN16879394) and the NIHR Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS), CRN: Reproductive Health and Childbirth Specialty (UKCRN reference 47201).

Understanding decision making about major surgery: protocol for a qualitative study of shared decision making by high-risk patients and their clinical teams.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Focusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.