Women's experiences of receiving information about and consenting or declining to participate in a randomized controlled trial involving episiotomy in vacuum-assisted delivery: a qualitative study

Jenny Ericson, Cecilia Anagrius, Agnes Rygaard, Lisa Guntram, Sophia Brismar Wendel, Susanne Hesselman, Jenny Ericson, Cecilia Anagrius, Agnes Rygaard, Lisa Guntram, Sophia Brismar Wendel, Susanne Hesselman

Abstract

Background: Information about and invitation to participate in a clinical trial involving an intervention during childbirth may cause fear or worry in pregnant women. The aim of this study was to describe nulliparous women's experiences of receiving an invitation to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy in vacuum-assisted delivery (EVA trial).

Methods: This qualitative study was nested in the ongoing EVA trial. Data were collected through semistructured telephone interviews with 23 women regarding their experiences of the information and invitation to participate in the EVA trial. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the interview contents.

Results: Three main experience categories were identified among the participants. "Timing of trial information and understanding" revealed that women preferred to obtain information about the trial early on during pregnancy. "Reasons to consent to or decline participation in the trial" encompassed a variety of reasons for women to consent, such as goodwill for science or personal benefits, or to decline, such as not wanting to be randomized or fear of increased risk of having a vacuum-assisted delivery. "Thoughts evoked regarding childbirth" were diverse, ranging from not being affected at all to having increased anxiety.

Conclusions: The women's experience of receiving an invitation to participate in an RCT of episiotomy in vacuum-assisted delivery varied widely, from immediately giving consent without further worries to increased anxiety or declining participation. Early and personal information with time for reflection was considered most satisfactory.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02643108 . Registered on December 28, 2015. The Lateral Episiotomy or Not in Vacuum Assisted Delivery in Non-parous Women (EVA) trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov .

Keywords: Episiotomy; Experiences; Informed consent; Randomized controlled trial; Vacuum-assisted delivery.

Conflict of interest statement

SBW is the principal investigator of the EVA trial, and SH is a coinvestigator of the EVA trial. CA and AR are recruiters for the EVA trial. JE and LG declare no conflicts of interest.

© 2021. The Author(s).

References

    1. The World Medical Association . Declaration of Helsinki. 2013.
    1. Sully BG, Julious SA, Nicholl J. A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: a review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2013;14(1):166. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-166.
    1. Blondel B, Alexander S, Bjarnadóttir RI, Gissler M, Langhoff-Roos J, Novak-Antolič Ž, Prunet C, Zhang WH, Hindori-Mohangoo AD, Zeitlin J, the Euro-Peristat Scientific Committee Variations in rates of severe perineal tears and episiotomies in 20 European countries: a study based on routine national data in Euro-Peristat Project. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(7):746–754. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12894.
    1. Mous M, Muller SA, de Leeuw JW. Long-term effects of anal sphincter rupture during vaginal delivery: faecal incontinence and sexual complaints. Bjog. 2008;115(2):234–238. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01502.x.
    1. Lund NS, Persson LK, Jango H, Gommesen D, Westergaard HB. Episiotomy in vacuum-assisted delivery affects the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;207:193–199. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.013.
    1. Bergendahl S, Ankarcrona V, Leijonhufvud A, Hesselman S, Karlstrom S, Kopp Kallner H, et al. Lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injury in vacuum-assisted delivery in nulliparous women: study protocol on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e025050. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025050.
    1. Lawton J, Snowdon C, Morrow S, Norman JE, Denison FC, Hallowell N. Recruiting and consenting into a peripartum trial in an emergency setting: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of women and healthcare professionals. Trials. 2016;17(1):195. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1323-3.
    1. Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
    1. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Method. 2017;16(1):160940691773384. doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847.
    1. Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2014;15(1):5. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-5.
    1. Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Fraser C, Mitchell E, Sullivan F, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2(2). 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.
    1. Junghans C, Feder G, Hemingway H, Timmis A, Jones M. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of “opt-in” versus “opt-out” strategies. BMJ. 2005;331(7522):940–942. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Klar N, Donner A. Current and future challenges in the design and analysis of cluster randomization trials. Stat Med. 2001;20(24):3729–3740. doi: 10.1002/sim.1115.
    1. Delevry D, Le QA. Effect of treatment preference in randomized controlled trials: systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Patient. 2019;12(6):593–609. doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00379-6.
    1. McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred practice in nursing and health care: theory and practice. Newark: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated; 2016.
    1. Diorgu FC, Steen MP, Keeling JJ, Mason-Whitehead E. Mothers and midwives perceptions of birthing position and perineal trauma: an exploratory study. Women Birth. 2016;29(6):518–523. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.05.002.
    1. Gachon B, Charveriat A, Pierre F, Fritel X. National survey about the practice of episiotomy within French National College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF) Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2019;47(9):627–636. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2019.06.011.
    1. Malvasi A, Trojano G, Tinelli A, Marinelli E, Zaami S. Episiotomy: an informed consent proposal. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;34(6):1–4. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1622677.
    1. Thompson R, Miller YD. Birth control: to what extent do women report being informed and involved in decisions about pregnancy and birth procedures? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):62. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-62.
    1. Seijmonsbergen-Schermers A, Thompson S, Feijen-de Jong E, Smit M, Prins M, van den Akker T, de Jonge A. Understanding the perspectives and values of midwives, obstetricians and obstetric registrars regarding episiotomy: qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e037536. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037536.
    1. Flory JH, Mushlin AI, Goodman ZI. Proposals to conduct randomized controlled trials without informed consent: a narrative review. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(12):1511–1518. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3780-5.
    1. Rebers S, Aaronson NK, van Leeuwen FE, Schmidt MK. Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6.
    1. Stohl H. Childbirth is not a medical emergency: maternal right to informed consent throughout labor and delivery. J Leg Med. 2018;38(3-4):329–353. doi: 10.1080/01947648.2018.1482243.
    1. The Swedish Pregnancy Register . Annual report from the Swedish Pregnancy Register. 2019.
    1. Strommer S, Lawrence W, Rose T, Vogel C, Watson D, Bottell JN, et al. Improving recruitment to clinical trials during pregnancy: a mixed methods investigation. Soc Sci Med. 2018;200:73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.014.
    1. Jenkins V, Fallowfield L. Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer. 2000;82(11):1783–1788. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1142.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться