Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Neonatal Research and the Validity of Informed Consent Obtained in the Perinatal Period

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Consent for participation in clinical research is considered valid if it is informed, understood, and voluntary. In the case of minors, parents give permission for their child to participate in research studies after being presented with all information needed to make an informed decision. Although informed consent is a vital component of clinical research, there is little information evaluating its validity in neonatal intensive-care populations. The objective of this project was to determine the validity of informed consent obtained from parents of infants enrolled in the multicenter randomized research study, neurologic outcomes and pre-emptive analgesia in the neonate (NEOPAIN).

DESIGN/METHODS: Parents of infants who survived to discharge and had signed consent for their newborn to participate in the NEOPAIN study at the University of Kentucky were asked 20 open-ended questions to determine their level of understanding about the NEOPAIN study. The NEOPAIN consent form, which had been approved by the University of Kentucky Medical Institutional Review Board (IRB), was used to formulate these questions. Questions addressed the timing of consent, parental understanding of the purpose, benefits, and risks of the study, the voluntary nature of the project, and their willingness to enroll in future studies if the opportunity presented. Answers were scored on a Likert scale, with 1 for no understanding and 5 for complete understanding.

RESULTS: Five of 64 parents (7.8%) had no recollection of the NEOPAIN study or of signing consent. Of those who remembered the study, only 67.8% understood the purpose of the study, with a higher proportion of the mothers than fathers knowing the purpose of the study (73.3% vs 57.1%), (p=0.029). Of those who understood the purpose of the study 95% were able to verbalize the benefits, but only 5% understood any potential risks. No parents reported feeling pressured or coerced to sign consent for the project and all parents reported they would enroll their child in additional studies if asked.

CONCLUSIONS: Valid consent in the antenatal/perinatal population is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. To maximize validity of consent in the antenatal/perinatal population every effort should be made to include mothers in the consent process. Additional attention during the consent process should be given to possible risks of the study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Protection of human subjects. Belmont Report—ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Fed Regist 1979;44(76):23192–23197.

  2. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C . What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000;283(20):2701–2711.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Doering LV, Dracup K, Moser D . Comparison of psychosocial adjustment of mothers and fathers of high-risk infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol 1999;19(2):132–137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Meyer EC GCC, Seifer R, Ramos A, Kilis E, Oh W . Psychological distress in mothers of preterm infants. Dev Behav Pediatr 1995;16:412–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Luce JM . Is the concept of informed consent applicable to clinical research involving critically ill patients? Crit Care Med 2003;31(Suppl 3):S153–S160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lantos J . Informed consent. The whole truth for patients? Cancer 1993;72(Suppl 9):2811–2815.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. English DC . Valid informed consent: a process, not a signature. Am Surg 2002;68(1):45–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernat JL . Informed consent. Muscle Nerve 2001;24(5):614–621.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moser C, Kalton G . Survey Methods in Social Investigation. London: Heinemann; 1971.

  10. Ghia N, Spong CY, Starbuck VN, Scialli AR, Ghidini A . Magnesium sulfate therapy affects attention and working memory in patients undergoing preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183(4):940–944.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rothmier JD, Lasley MV, Shapiro GG . Factors influencing parental consent in pediatric clinical research. Pediatrics 2003;111(5 Pt 1):1037–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Truog RD, Robinson W, Randolph A, Morris A . Is informed consent always necessary for randomized, controlled trials? N Engl J Med 1999;340(10):804–807.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mason SA, Allmark PJ . Obtaining informed consent to neonatal randomised controlled trials: interviews with parents and clinicians in the Euricon study. Lancet 2000;356(9247):2045–2051.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dunn CM, Chadwick G . Protecting Study Volunteers in Research: A Manual for Investigative Sites. 1 ed. Boston: Center Watch; 2001.

  15. Kodish E, Eder M, Noll RB, et al. Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials. Jama 2004;291(4):470–475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC . Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001;358(9295):1772–1777.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hewlett S . Consent to clinical research—adequately voluntary or substantially influenced? J Med Ethics 1996;22(4):232–237.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fried E . The therapeutic misconception, beneficence, and respect. Account Res 2001;8(4):331–348.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mason S . Obtaining informed consent for neonatal randomised controlled trials—an “elaborate ritual”? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1997;76(3):F143–F145.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendix

Appendix

See Table A

Appendix A QUESTIONNAIRE TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OF INFORMED CONSENT

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ballard, H., Shook, L., Desai, N. et al. Neonatal Research and the Validity of Informed Consent Obtained in the Perinatal Period. J Perinatol 24, 409–415 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211142

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211142

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links