A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research

Abstract

BackgroundThere is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study.MethodsWe conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands.ResultsThree themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals’ individual perception of risk may influence recruitment.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women.

Pregnant women with diabetes and their clinician's experience of participating in a pilot randomised controlled trial of corticosteroid administration in late pregnancy: A qualitative study

“…15,18,21,23 The majority of women perceived no to very little risk of participating in the trial, and this is often a major consideration in women's decision to be involved in a study. 18,21,23,32 In particular, the knowledge that corticosteroids were already being used in pregnancy was comforting to women, which is consistent with evidence that shows drugs already used in pregnancy are more likely to be acceptable to participants in clinical trials. 23 Women felt well informed before consenting, however, some identified there was too much written information provided, while others wanted more information regarding the risk of corticosteroid administration in pregnancy.…”

“…Pregnant populations were at significant risk of harm due to COVID‐19 infection, and rapid evidence to support the safety of vaccination in this group was needed, however, women were hesitant to participate in clinical trials 31 . Clinicians report challenges in encouraging women to participate in clinical trials and have highlighted several barriers to ensuring a clinical trial is conducted as intended 22,25,26,32 . Understanding clinician perspectives about their involvement in the administration of clinical research is important in the development and implementation of study protocols.…”

Views and preferences of medical professionals and pregnant women about a novel primary prevention intervention for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a qualitative study

“…Based on safety concerns a similar restrictive, protective gatekeeping role is often taken in the involvement of pregnant women in medical research and pharmaceutical interventions during pregnancy, as is also demonstrated by some of our findings [22, 49–51] This position reveals a precautionary principle attitude, i.e. to avoid an action altogether if the action carries the potential to cause significant harm, even if this is highly unlikely [52].…”

Fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials: an integrated scientific and ethical approach

“…One of the reasons concerns the individual risk perception of researchers, research ethics committees, sponsors and pregnant women themselves which plays an important role in the inclusion of pregnant women. Even if the research intervention poses low risks and may potentially benefit the pregnant women, when researchers perceive a trial to pose more than low risks to their patients they may be reluctant to recruit eligible participants (gatekeeping) and pregnant women may be reluctant to participate [38]. Second, for many drugs used by pregnant women the purpose will often not be to determine differences in efficacy between pregnant women and non-pregnant women but rather to determine aspects such as effectiveness and safety, including birth defects and teratogenicity.…”