Analysis of motivations that lead women to participate (or not) in a newborn cohort study

BMC Pediatrics

Luca Ronfani¹  Patrizia Volpi¹  Fabio Barbone²  Maura Bin¹  Veronica Tognin¹  Stefano Russian¹  Marcella Montico¹  Liza Vecchi Brumatti¹ 

[1] Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, via dell’Istria, 65/1, 34137, Trieste, Italy;Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, Unit of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Udine, Udine, Italy

关键词: Withdrawal;    Refusal;    Participation;    Motivation;    Newborn cohort study;   

Others  :  1145014
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2431-13-53

 received in 2012-12-21, accepted in 2013-04-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Little is known about reasons that influence parents’ decision to participate in studies enrolling healthy children. The aim of this observational study was to verify the reasons that lead pregnant women to give their consent or to refuse participation to a newborn cohort study with a long follow up time.

Methods

To prospectively investigate the reasons that lead women to participate, to refuse the participation or to withdraw from a newborn cohort study, three different questionnaires were administered to pregnant women contacted or enrolled in the Phime cohort study, carried out in an Italian Hospital from 2007 to 2010.

Results

Phime study participation was refused by 304 women and 145 withdrew their consent during the follow up. All these women filled in the related questionnaires. Within 632 mothers in follow up at 18 months, 430 filled in the questionnaire on motivation to participate: 97% stated that the main reason was to contribute to research; 96% and 90% stated that they wanted to benefit future babies’ and mothers’ health. Ninety-six percent of women would appreciate to know the results of analysis carried out on biological samples collected and of the overall study results. One third of the mothers (37%) wanted to be involved in the definition of future similar studies, bringing their experience and their views. Within the 304 women who refused participation, 56% stated that the study was too demanding, 26% was not interested in participating and 18% was concerned about the need to collect biological samples and to be submitted to neurocognitive tests. Fifty-two percent of 145 women who withdrew after enrollment stated that the study was too demanding (52%), and 6% was concerned about the biological samples collection.

Conclusions

The altruistic reason appears to be the main reported by women to decide to participate in a newborn cohort study. The fact that the study was too demanding and the need to collect biological samples are important reasons that lead women to refuse participation or to withdraw from the study. An adequate communication on these aspects should minimize difficulties in enrolment and losses to follow up.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Vecchi Brumatti et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Trauth JM, Musa D, Siminoff L, Jewell IK, Ricci E: Public attitude regarding willingness to participate in medicinal research studies. J Health Soc Policy 2000, 12:23-43.
• [2]Rothmier JD, Lasley MV, Shapiro GG: Factors influencing parental consent in pediatric clinical research. Pediatrics 2003, 111:1037-41.
• [3]Langley JM, Halperin SA, Mills EL, Eastwood B: Parental willingness to enter a child in a controlled vaccine trial. Clin Invest Med 1998, 21:12-6.
• [4]Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Siewert M, Malviya S: Factors that influence parents’ decisions to consent to their child’s participation in clinical anesthesia research. Anesth Analg 1998, 86:50-3.
• [5]Harth SC, Thong YH: Sociodemographic and motivational characteristics of parents who volunteer their children for clinical research: a controlled study. BMJ 1990, 300:1372-5.
• [6]Harth SC, Johnstone RR, Thong YH: The psychological profile of parents who volunteer their children for clinical research: a controlled study. J Med Ethics 1992, 18:86-93.
• [7]Singhal N, Oberle K, Burgess E, Huber-Okrainec J: Parents’ perceptions of research with newborn. J Perinatol 2002, 22:57-63.
• [8]Maayan-Metzger A, Kedem-Friedrich P, Kuint J: Motivations of mothers to enroll their newborn infants in general clinical research on well-infant care and development. Pediatrics 2008, 121:e590-6.
• [9]Oberle K, Singhal N, Huber J, Burgess E: Development of an instrument to investigate parent’s perceptions of research with newborn babies. Nurs Ethics 2000, 7:327.
• [10]Valent F, Horvat M, Sofianou-Katsoulis A, Spiric Z, Mazej D, Little D, Prasouli A, Mariuz M, Tamburlini G, Nakou S, Barbone F: Neurodevelopmental Effects of Low-level Prenatal Mercury Exposure From Maternal Fish Consumption in a Mediterranean Cohort: Study Rationale and Design. J Epidemiol 2013, 23:146-52.
• [11]Casetta A, Snoj Tratnik J, Mazej D, Krsnik M, Mariuz M, Sofianou K, Spirić Z, Barbone F, Horvat M, Miklavcic A Miklavcic A: Mercury, arsenic and selenium exposure levels in relation to fish consumption in the Mediterranean area. Environ Res 2012.
• [12]Jenkins MM, Reed-Gross E, Rasmussen SA, Barfield WD, Prue CE, Gallagher ML, Honein MA: Maternal attitudes toward DNA collection for gene-environment studies: a qualitative research study. Am J Med Genet A 2009, 149A:2378-86.
• [13]Jenkins MM, Reed-Gross E, Barfield WD, Prue CE, Gallagher ML, Rasmussen SA, Honein MA: Qualitative assessment of study materials and communication strategies used in studies that include DNA collection. Am J Med Genet A 2011, 155A:2721-31.
• [14]Haga SB: Analysis of educational materials and destruction/opt-out initiatives for storage and use of residual newborn screening samples. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2010, 14:587-92.
• [15]Rothwell EW, Anderson RA, Burbank MJ, Goldenberg AJ, Lewis MH, Stark LA, Wong B, Botkin JR: Concerns of newborn blood screening advisory committee members regarding storage and use of residual newborn screening blood spots. Am J Public Health 2011, 101:2111-6.
• [16]Botkin JR, Rothwell E, Anderson R, Stark L, Goldenberg A, Lewis M, Burbank M, Wong B: Public attitudes regarding the use of residual newborn screening specimens for research. Pediatrics 2012, 129:231-8.
• [17]Rothwell E, Anderson R, Botkin J: Policy issues and stakeholder concerns regarding the storage and use of residual newborn dried blood samples for research. Policy Polit Nurs Pract 2010, 11:5-12.
• [18]Tarini BA, Goldenberg A, Singer D, Clark SJ, Butchart A, Davis MM: Not without my permission: parents’ willingness to permit use of newborn screening samples for research. Public Health Genomics 2010, 13:125-30.
• [19]Kharaboyan L, Avard D, Knoppers BM: Storing newborn blood spots: modern controversies. J Law Med Ethics 2004, 32:741-8.
• [20]Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, Sirett E, Wong G, Cargo M, Herbert CP, Seifer SD, Green LW, Greenhalgh T: Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q 2012, 90:311-46.
• [21]Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Garlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, Rhodes S, Samuel-Hodge C, Maty S, Lux L, Webb L, Sutton SF, Swinson T, Jackman A, Whitener L: Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess 2004, 99:1-8.
• [22]Bosslet GT, Torke AM, Hickman SE, Terry CL, Helft PR: The patient-doctor relationship and online social networks: results of a national survey. J Gen Intern Med 2011, 26:1168-74.
• [23]Iverson SA, Howard KB, Penney BK: Impact of internet use on health-related behaviors and the patient-physician relationship: a survey-based study and review. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2008, 108:699-711.
• [24]Veinot TC, Campbell TR, Kruger D, Grodzinski A, Franzen S: Drama and danger: the opportunities and challenges of promoting youth sexual health through online social networks. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011, 2011:1436-45.
• [25]Weitzman ER, Adida B, Kelemen S, Mandl KD: Sharing data for public health research by members of an international online diabetes social network. PLoS One 2011, 6:e19256.
• [26]Jones L, Saksvig BI, Grieser M, Young DR: Recruiting adolescent girls into a follow-up study: benefits of using a social networking website. Contemp Clin Trials 2012, 33:268-72.