Motivations for and against Participation in Neonatal Research: Insights from Interviews of Diverse Parents Approached for Neonatal Research in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To describe parents' motivations for and against participation in neonatal research, including the views of those who declined participation. STUDY DESIGN: We performed 44 semi-structured, qualitative interviews of parents approached for neonatal research. Here we describe their motivations for and against participation. RESULTS: Altruism was an important reason parents chose to participate. Some hoped participation in research would benefit their infant. Burdens of participation to the family, such as transportation to follow up (distinct from risks/burdens to the infant), were often deciding factors among those who declined participation. Perceived risks to the infant were reasons against participation, but parents often did not differentiate between baseline risks and incremental risk of study participation. Concerns regarding their infant being treated like a "guinea pig" were common among those who declined. Finally, historical abuses and institutional racism were reported as important concerns by some research decliners from minoritized populations. CONCLUSIONS: Within a diverse sample of parents approached to enroll their infant in neonatal research, motivations for and against participation emerged, which may be targets of future interventions. These motivations included reasons for participation which we may hope to encourage, such as altruism. They also included reasons against participation, which we may hope to, as feasible, eliminate, mitigate, or at least acknowledge. These findings can help clinical trialists, regulators, and funders attempting to improve neonatal research recruitment processes.

Equity Concerns Across Pediatric Research Recruitment: An Analysis of Research Staff Interviews.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Difficulty recruiting individuals from minoritized and underserved populations for clinical research is well documented and has health equity implications. Previously, we reported findings from interviews with research staff about pediatric research recruitment processes. Respondents raised equity concerns related to recruitment and enrollment of participants from minoritized, low resourced, and underserved populations. We therefore decided to perform a secondary coding of the transcripts to examine equity-related issues systematically. METHODS: We conducted a process of secondary coding and analysis of interviews with research staff involved in recruitment for pediatric clinical research. Through consensus we identified codes relevant to equity and developed a conceptual framework including 5 stages of research. RESULTS: We analyzed 28 interviews and coded equity-related items. We report 6 implications of our findings. First, inequitable access to clinical care is an upstream barrier to research participation. Second, there is a need to increase research opportunities where underserved and under-represented populations receive care. Third, increasing research team diversity can build trust with patients and families, but teams must ensure adequate support of all research team members. Fourth, issues related to consent processes raise institutional-level opportunities for improvement. Fifth, there are numerous study procedure-related barriers to participation. Sixth, our analysis illustrates that individuals who speak languages other than English face barriers across multiple stages. CONCLUSIONS: Research staff members identified equity-related concerns and recommended potential solutions across 5 stages of the research process, which may guide those endeavoring to improve research recruitment for pediatric patients from minoritized and underserved populations.

Experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research: insights from parent interviews.

INTRODUCTION: Parents struggle with being asked to participate in neonatal research. Past work has largely failed to include views of minoritized parents, low-socioeconomic status parents, and those who declined research. We aimed to describe parents' preferences related to learning about eligibility for neonatal research. METHODS: Qualitative interviews of parents who were asked to enroll their infant in neonatal research. Themes related to parental experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research were identified using content analysis. RESULTS: Many parents desired greater involvement of their clinical team. Emotions at the time of recruitment were critically important to parents' experience, where were deeply impacted by interpersonal relationships with research staff. DISCUSSION: Increased involvement of the clinical team and greater sensitivity to the stressors around parent and infant conditions at the time of recruitment for neonatal research should be considered by those attempting to improve recruitment for neonatal research.

Race and Ethnicity of Infants Enrolled in Neonatal Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Representativeness of populations within neonatal clinical trials is crucial to moving the field forward. Although racial and ethnic disparities in research inclusion are well documented in other fields, they are poorly described within neonatology. Objective: To describe the race and ethnicity of infants included in a sample of recent US neonatal clinical trials and the variability in this reporting. Evidence Review: A systematic search of US neonatal clinical trials entered into Cochrane CENTRAL 2017 to 2021 was conducted. Two individuals performed inclusion determination, data extraction, and quality assessment independently with discrepancies adjudicated by consensus. Findings: Of 120 studies with 14 479 participants that met the inclusion criteria, 75 (62.5%) included any participant race or ethnicity data. In the studies that reported race and ethnicity, the median (IQR) percentage of participants of each background were 0% (0%-1%) Asian, 26% (9%-42%) Black, 3% (0%-12%) Hispanic, 0% (0%-0%) Indigenous (eg, Alaska Native, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian), 0% (0%-0%) multiple races, 57% (30%-68%) White, and 7% (1%-21%) other race or ethnicity. Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous participants were underrepresented, while White participants were overrepresented compared with a reference sample of the US clinical neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) population from the Vermont Oxford Network. Many participants were labeled as other race or ethnicity without adequate description. There was substantial variability in terms and methods of reporting race and ethnicity data. Geographic representation was heavily skewed toward the Northeast, with nearly one-quarter of states unrepresented. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that neonatal research may perpetuate inequities by underrepresenting Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous neonates in clinical trials. Studies varied in documentation of race and ethnicity, and there was regional variation in the sites included. Based on these findings, funders and clinical trialists are advised to consider a 3-point targeted approach to address these issues: prioritize identifying ways to increase diversity in neonatal clinical trial participation, agree on a standardized method to report race and ethnicity among neonatal clinical trial participants, and prioritize the inclusion of participants from all regions of the US in neonatal clinical trials.

Ethical challenges in first-in-human trials of the artificial placenta and artificial womb: not all technologies are created equally, ethically.

Artificial placenta and artificial womb technologies to support extremely premature neonates are advancing toward clinical testing in humans. Currently, no recommendations exist comparing these approaches to guide study design and optimal enrollment eligibility adhering to principles of research ethics. In this paper, we will explore how scientific differences between the artificial placenta and artificial womb approaches create unique ethical challenges to designing first-in-human trials of safety and provide recommendations to guide ethical study design for initial human translation.

Clinician perception of care at the end of life in a quaternary neonatal intensive care unit.

Introduction: Care for neonates at the end of life (EOL) is often challenging for families and medical teams alike, performed suboptimally, and requires an experienced and compassionate clinician. Much literature exists on adult and pediatric EOL care, but limited studies examine the neonatal process. Methods: We aimed to describe clinicians' experiences around EOL care in a single quaternary neonatal intensive care unit as we implemented a standard guideline using the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit-Quality of Dying and Death 20 tool. Results: Surveys were completed by 205 multidisciplinary clinicians over three time periods and included 18 infants at EOL. While most responses were high, a meaningful minority were below goal (<8 on 0-10 scale) for troubling symptom management, conflict between parents and staff, family access to resources, and parent preparation of symptoms. Comparison between Epochs revealed improvement in one symptom management and four communication categories. Satisfaction scores related to education around EOL were better in later Epochs. Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale scores were low, with few outliers. Discussion: These findings can guide those aiming to improve processes around neonatal EOL by identifying areas with the greatest challenges (e.g., conflict management) and areas that need further study (e.g., pain management around death).

Factors That Impact Hospital-Specific Enrollment Rates for a Neonatal Clinical Trial: An Analysis of the HEAL Study.

Inconsistent enrollment among hospitals for neonatal clinical trials may lead to study populations that are not representative of the patient population in the neonatal intensive care unit. The High-Dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and Encephalopathy (HEAL) trial was a multisite randomized clinical trial investigating erythropoietin as a neuroprotective treatment for term infants (those born between 37 and 42 complete weeks) with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. Substantial variability was noted in enrollment rate by hospital. We developed survey questions across five conceptual domains to understand systems-level issues that might contribute to variation in enrollment rate by hospital. Our study found that hospitals varied in their responses across these five domains. We propose three potential reasons that we found a lack of identifiable hospital-level factors that correlated with enrollment rates: sample-size limitations, methodological concerns, and confounding factors. Future studies with a larger sample size should be considered to evaluate contributors to hospital-level variability. This will lead to more robust recruitment strategies, improved enrollment, and decreases in the waste of research resources.

Parental Views of Facilitators and Barriers to Research Participation: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Low enrollment within pediatric research increases the cost of research, decreases generalizability, and threatens to exacerbate existing health disparities. To assess barriers and facilitators to pediatric research participation and evaluate differences by enrollment status. METHODS: Data Sources include PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. Study selection include peer reviewed articles that contained information related to facilitators and barriers to the parental decision whether to enroll their child in research and included the views of parents who declined. We extracted barriers and facilitators to research, enrollment status, and study characteristics, including study design, quality, and patient population. RESULTS: Seventy articles were included for analysis. Facilitators of participation included: benefits, trust, support of research, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common facilitators within those categories included health benefit to child (N = 39), altruism (N = 30), and the importance of research (N = 26). Barriers to participation included: study-related concerns, burdens of participation, lack of trust, general research concerns, informational and consent related, and relational issues. Common barriers within those categories included risks to child (N = 46), burdens of participation (N = 35), and the stress of the decision (N = 29). We had a limited ability to directly compare by enrollment status and no ability to analyze interactions between facilitators and barriers. We only included studies written in English. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified key facilitators and barriers to research participation in pediatrics. The findings from this review may guide researchers aiming to create interventions to improve the parental experience of recruitment for pediatric studies and to optimize enrollment rates.

Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the parental experience of recruitment and assess differences between parents who participated and those who declined to enroll in a neonatal clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: This was a survey conducted at 12 US neonatal intensive care units of parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and encephaLopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Questions assessed 6 factors of the parental experience of recruitment: (1) interactions with research staff; (2) the consent experience; (3) perceptions of the study; (4) decisional conflict; (5) reasons for/against participation; and (6) timing of making the enrollment decision. RESULTS: In total, 269 of 387 eligible parents, including 183 of 242 (75.6%) of those who enrolled their children in HEAL and 86 of 145 (59.3%) parents who declined to enroll their children in HEAL, were included in analysis. Parents who declined to enroll more preferred to be approached by clinical team members rather than by research team members (72.9% vs 49.2%, P = .005). Enrolled parents more frequently reported positive initial impressions (54.9% vs 10.5%, P < .001). Many parents in both groups made their decision early in the recruitment process. Considerations of reasons for/against participation differed by enrollment status. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how parents experience recruitment, and how this differs by enrollment status, may help researchers improve recruitment processes for families and increase enrollment. The parental experience of recruitment varied by enrollment status. These findings can guide future work aiming to inform optimal recruitment strategies for neonatal clinical trials.

Parental Factors Associated With the Decision to Participate in a Neonatal Clinical Trial.

Importance: It remains poorly understood how parents decide whether to enroll a child in a neonatal clinical trial. This is particularly true for parents from racial or ethnic minority populations. Understanding factors associated with enrollment decisions may improve recruitment processes for families, increase enrollment rates, and decrease disparities in research participation. Objective: To assess differences in parental factors between parents who enrolled their infant and those who declined enrollment for a neonatal randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study conducted from July 2017 to October 2019 in 12 US level 3 and 4 neonatal intensive care units included parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and Encephalopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Data were analyzed October 2019 through July 2020. Exposure: Parental choice of enrollment in neonatal clinical trial. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentages and odds ratios (ORs) of parent participation as categorized by demographic characteristics, self-assessment of child's medical condition, study comprehension, and trust in medical researchers. Survey questions were based on the hypothesis that parents who enrolled their infant in HEAL differ from those who declined enrollment across 4 categories: (1) infant characteristics and parental demographic characteristics, (2) perception of infant's illness, (3) study comprehension, and (4) trust in clinicians and researchers. Results: Of a total 387 eligible parents, 269 (69.5%) completed the survey and were included in analysis. This included 183 of 242 (75.6%) of HEAL-enrolled and 86 of 145 (59.3%) of HEAL-declined parents. Parents who enrolled their infant had lower rates of Medicaid participation (74 [41.1%] vs 47 [55.3%]; P = .04) and higher rates of annual income greater than $55 000 (94 [52.8%] vs 30 [37.5%]; P = .03) compared with those who declined. Black parents had lower enrollment rates compared with White parents (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.73). Parents who reported their infant's medical condition as more serious had higher enrollment rates (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.0-16.3). Parents who enrolled their infant reported higher trust in medical researchers compared with parents who declined (mean [SD] difference, 5.3 [0.3-10.3]). There was no association between study comprehension and enrollment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the following factors were associated with neonatal clinical trial enrollment: demographic characteristics (ie, race/ethnicity, Medicaid status, and reported income), perception of illness, and trust in medical researchers. Future work to confirm these findings and explore the reasons behind them may lead to strategies for better engaging underrepresented groups in neonatal clinical research to reduce enrollment disparities.

Living with the Unknown: A Qualitative Study of Parental Experience of Prognostic Uncertainty in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize the experience of prognostic uncertainty for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) parents. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative interview study of current and former NICU parents regarding their experience with prognostic uncertainty in the NICU. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-four parents were interviewed before achieving thematic saturation. Three phases of the parental experience of prognostic uncertainty emerged: shock, gray daze, and looking forward. These phases often, but not always, occurred sequentially. In shock, parents felt overwhelmed by uncertainty and were unable to visualize a future for their family. In gray daze, parents felt frustrated by the continued uncertainty. While accepting the possibility of a future for their family, they could not conceptualize a path by which to achieve it. In looking forward, parents accepted uncertainty as inevitable and incorporated it into their vision of the future. CONCLUSION: While each parent experienced the prognostic uncertainty in the neonatal intensive care unit in their own way, we found three common experiential phases. By understanding how a parent experiences prognostic uncertainty in these phases, providers may become better able to communicate and form therapeutic relationships with parents.

Conflicts of interest in clinical ethics consults.

Although there is wide agreement that ethics consults are at risk for conflicts of interest (COIs), ethics consultants (ECs) have limited guidance with regard to how to identify and approach COIs. We aim to address these concerns and provide practical guidance. We will define and consider four categories of COIs: consult type, team composition, dual clinical roles and other concerns. We will define and consider six actions available for ECs to take in response to COIs: no action, disclosure only, obtaining a second opinion, referring to another EC, referring to an institutional ethics committee or seeking an outside consult. We will then propose a points-based algorithm for ECs to use to determine the appropriate response to COI. Finally, we will discuss the strengths and limitations of our proposed algorithm.

Gaps in the Implementation of Shared Decision-making: Illustrative Cases.

Shared decision-making (SDM) has emerged as the preferred decision-making model in the clinician-patient relationship. Through collaboration, SDM helps to facilitate evidence-based medical decisions that are closely aligned with patient or surrogate preferences, values, and goals. How to implement SDM in clinical pediatric practice, however, remains elusive, in part because SDM in pediatrics is complicated by the involvement of parents as a special class of surrogate decision-maker. A provisional framework for the process of SDM in pediatrics was recently proposed by Opel to help facilitate its implementation. To identify aspects of the framework that require refinement, we applied it across a diverse range of clinical cases from multiple pediatric specialties. In doing so, several questions surfaced that deserve further scrutiny: (1) For which medical decisions is consideration of SDM required? (2) What is considered medically reasonable when there is variability in standard practice? (3) Can an option that is not consistent with standard practice still be medically reasonable? (4) How should public health implications be factored into SDM? (5) How should variability in preference sensitivity be approached? (6) How should the developing autonomy of adolescents be integrated into SDM?; and (7) How should SDM address parental decisional burden for emotionally charged decisions? We conduct a brief analysis of each question raised to illustrate key areas for future research.

Child Abuse, Incarceration, and Decisions About Life-sustaining Treatment.

Most critical care interventions for children occur in the framework of a supportive environment with loving parents that are present at the bedside to help to guide medical interventions through shared decision-making. What happens, however, if the parents are precluded from being at the bedside because of legal entanglements? How should clinical decisions progress in those cases? In this Ethics Rounds, we present the case of an infant with severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy at birth whose mother was incarcerated shortly after delivery. We explore clinical and legal challenges that the medical team faces in determining best interests for the infant in this context and difficulties in deciding what therapies to provide and for how long.