Objectives This study explored whether self‐esteem would moderate the effectiveness of a self‐affirmation manipulation at increasing openness to personally relevant health‐risk information. Design The study employed a prospective experimental design. Method Participants (N = 328) completed either a self‐affirmation manipulation or a control task, prior to reading information detailing the health‐related consequences of taking insufficient exercise. They then completed a series of measures assessing their cognitions towards exercise and their derogation of the information. Exercise behaviour was assessed at 1‐week follow‐up. Results Self‐esteem moderated the impact of self‐affirmation on the majority of outcomes. For participants with low self‐esteem, the self‐affirmation manipulation resulted in more positive attitudes and intentions towards exercise, together with lower levels of derogation of the health‐risk information. By contrast, there was no effect of the self‐affirmation manipulation on outcomes for participants with high self‐esteem. Conclusion Findings suggest that self‐affirmation manipulations might be of particular benefit for those with low self‐esteem in terms of promoting openness towards health‐risk information. This is promising from a health promotion perspective, as individuals with low self‐esteem often represent those most in need of intervention. What is already known on this subject? Self‐affirmation has been shown to result in more open processing of personally relevant health‐risk information. Individuals low in self‐esteem tend to process such information more defensively than those high in self‐esteem. What does this study add? It explores whether self‐esteem moderates the impact of self‐affirmation on responses to health‐risk information. Findings suggest that individuals with low self‐esteem benefit most from the self‐affirmation manipulation. This has important applied implications, as individuals with low self‐esteem may be most in need of intervention.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate parents' perceptions when they were asked to enrol their unborn preterm infant in a randomised trial involving delayed cord clamping or cord milking. Methods:The parents of 58 infants were asked to take part in a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to provide feedback about how they felt about their Heike. Rabe@bsuh.nhs.uk Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.infants being included in the research project. A total of 37 parents -15 fathers and 22 mothers -agreed to take part.Results: Parents were generally positive about their experiences of their baby taking part in the trial, but the findings raised some concerns about the validity of the consent obtained before delivery, as it was given in a hurry and some participants had difficulty remembering that they had agreed to take part. Four themes were identified from the interviews: implications of taking part, reasons for enrolling infants, experiences of recruitment and suggestions for improvement. Conclusion:Overall, the parents were positive about their baby taking part in the trial, but the consent process could be improved, by providing information about relevant trials earlier in the pregnancy or implementing continuous consent at key points in the trial. Key words: informed consent, interviews, preterm, randomised controlled trials Key notes• The aim of this study was to evaluate parents' perceptions when they were asked to enrol their unborn preterm infant in a randomised delayed cord clamping or milking trial.• A total of 37 parents -15 fathers and 22 mothers -agreed to provide feedback during semi-structured interviews.• The parents were generally very positive about their experiences, but the findings raised some concerns about the validity of consent obtained before delivery.High-quality, neonatal clinical research is essential to improve the treatment and outcome of sick newborn babies (1) . Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.considered the gold standard for comparing and evaluating different treatments.Valid informed consent is central to the conduct of RCTs and parents must give permission for their baby to participate in neonatal research (2). For this consent to be valid, parents must be deemed to be mentally competent, to have received appropriate information and to have given consent voluntarily (3). In trials involving infants receiving an intervention at, or near, the time of birth, families must be approached before the birth of their baby. Parental decisions are sometimes made when time is short and stress is high and this can make it challenging to adhere to the criteria for informed consent (4). Two reviews of ten randomised trials suggested that a slight delay of 30 seconds in clamping the cord enabled placental blood to redistribute into the infant.This benefits preterm infants greatly by reducing intraventricular haemorrhages and the need for blood ...