Top

BMC Pediatrics

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Parental and staff perspectives of NICU research procedures

Authors: Christina Freibott, Ursula Guillen, Amy Mackley, Robert Locke

Published in: BMC Pediatrics | Issue 1/2016

Abstract

Background

There are limited data on parental perception of infant participation in minimal risk and minor increase above minimal risk research focusing on the NICU population. The study objective was to assess parental and NICU staff perceptions concerning minimal risk and minor increase above minimal risk in the NICU setting.

Methods

Parents of infants and NICU staff were presented with a combination of 4 infant scenarios and 5 hypothetical research procedures. These assessed participants’ willingness to allow their infant to participate in research and their attitude towards obligation to assist future children. Linear and hierarchal linear models analyzed the association and interaction effects on the likelihood to consent to research procedures.

Results

Sixty parents and 30 NICU staff members were surveyed. Parents’ acceptability for each of the five research procedures ranged from 31 % to 83 %. Parent gender, age, race/ethnicity, insurance, education and history of previous child in the NICU were not associated with the likelihood to consent to the research procedures. Acceptability for each of the five research procedures among NICU staff ranged from 19 % to 98 %. There were no significant differences between NICU staff’s and parents’ responses for 4 of 5 research procedures. A minority of parents and nurses (38.3 % and 40 % respectively), compared to a majority of physicians (66.7 %), agreed or strongly agreed that parents have a responsibility to involve their children in low risk medical research in order to help future children, even if this would not help their own child. Lower agreement with obligation to help future children (p < 0.01) and higher education (p = 0.01) were associated with a decreased likelihood to consent to research procedures.

Conclusion

In our study population, common NICU-related research procedures were considered appropriate and acceptable to a diverse group of NICU parents representing a wide range of race/ethnic and socioeconomic strata. Current regulations guiding informed consent for minimal and minor increase over minimal risk research in the NICU environment appear ethically consistent with a diverse group of parents and providers.

(OHRP). Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (‘Common Rule’). http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html. Accessed 7 May 2016.

Sachdeva T, Morris MC. Higher-hazard, no benefit research involving children: parental perspectives. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e1302–9. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1700.CrossRefPubMed

Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA. 2004;291(4):476–82. doi:10.1001/jama.291.4.476.CrossRefPubMed

Wendler D, Abdoler E, Wiener L, Grady C. Views of Adolescents and Parents on Pediatric Research Without the Potential for Clinical Benefit. Pediatrics. 2012;130:692–9. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0068.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wendler D, Jenkins T. Children’s and their parents’ views on facing research risks for the benefit of others. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162:9–14. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2007.3.CrossRefPubMed

Wendler D, Varma S. Minimal risk in pediatric research. J Pediatr. 2006;149:855–61. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.08.064.CrossRefPubMed

Weijer C, Miller PB. Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller’s “Assessing research risks systematically”. J Med Ethics. 2007;33:487–90. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016444.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hirshon JM, Krugman SD, Witting MD, et al. Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9:1417–20. doi:10.1197/aemj.9.12.1417.CrossRefPubMed

Nelson RM. Minimal Risk. Yet Again. J Pediatr. 2007;150(June):570–2. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.03.040.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Resnik DB. Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:35–8. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.010470.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Varma S, Jenkins T, Wendler D. How do children and parents make decisions about pediatric clinical research? J Pediatr Hematol. 2008;30:823–8. doi:10.1097/MPH.0b013e318180bc0d.CrossRef

12.

Westra AE, Wit JM, Sukhai RN, De Beaufort ID. How best to define the concept of minimal risk. J Pediatr. 2011;159:496–500. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.05.034.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wendler D. A New Justification for Pediatric Research Without the Potential for Clinical Benefit. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(March):23–31. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.634482.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Westra AE, Sukhai RN, Wit JM, de Beaufort ID, Cohen AF. Acceptable risks and burdens for children in research without direct benefit: a systematic analysis of the decisions made by the Dutch Central Committee. J Med Ethics. 2010;36:420–4. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.035550.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Binik A, Weijer C. Why the debate over minimal risk needs to be reconsidered. J Med Philos (United Kingdom). 2014;39:387–405. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhu020.CrossRef

16.

Tait AR, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Voepel-Lewis T. Effect of various risk/benefit trade-offs on parents’ understanding of a pediatric research study. Pediatrics. 2010;125:e1475–82. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1796.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S. Factors that influence parents’ assessments of the risks and benefits of research involving their children. Pediatrics. 2004;113:727–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.4.727.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Brody JL, Annett RD, Scherer DG, Perryman ML, Cofrin KMW. Comparisons of adolescent and parent willingness to participate in minimal and above-minimal risk pediatric asthma research protocols. J Adolesc Heal. 2005;37:229–35. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.09.026.CrossRef

19.

Ballard HO, Shook LA, Desai NS, Anand KJS. Neonatal research and the validity of informed consent obtained in the perinatal period. J Perinatol. 2004;24:409–15. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211142.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Caldwell PHY, Dans L, de Vries MC, et al. Standard 1: Consent and Recruitment. Pediatrics. 2012;129:S118–23. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0055D.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cameron MA, Marsillio LE, Cushman LF, Morris MC. Parents’ perspectives on the consent approach for minimal- risk research involving children. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2011;33:6–13.

22.

Fisher HR, McKevitt C, Boaz A. Why do parents enrol their children in research: a narrative synthesis. J Med Ethics. 2011;37:544–51. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040220.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Fogas BS, Oesterheld JR, Shader RI. A retrospective study of children’s perceptions of participation as clinical research subjects in a minimal risk study. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2001;22:211–6.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Wendler D, Belsky L, Thompson KM, Emanuel EJ. Quantifying the federal minimal risk standard: implications for pediatric research without a prospect of direct benefit. JAMA. 2005;294:826–32. doi:10.1016/S8756-5005(08)70375-5.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Morris MC. Pediatric Participation in Non-Therapeutic Research. J Law, Med Ethics. 2012;40:665–72. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00697.x.CrossRef

26.

Singhal N, Oberle K, Burgess E, Huber-Okrainec J. Parents’ perceptions of research with newborns. J Perinatol. 2002;22(1):57–63. doi:10.1038/sj/jp/7210608.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hoehn KS, Nathan A, White LE, et al. Parental perception of time and decision-making in neonatal research. J Perinatol. 2009;29(7):508–11. doi:10.1038/jp.2009.5.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ward FR. Chaos, vulnerability and control: parental beliefs about neonatal clinical trials. J Perinatol. 2009;29(2):156–62. doi:10.1038/jp.2008.139.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Miller RB. Children, Ethics and Modern Medicine. Indiana University Press; 2003.

30.

Lantos JD, Feudtner C. SUPPORT and the Ethics of Study Implementation: Lessons for Comparative Effectiveness Research from the Trial of Oxygen Therapy for Premature Babies. Hastings Cent Rep. 2015;45(1):30–40. doi:10.1002/hast.407.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Drazen JM, Solomon CG, Morrissey S, Greene MF. Support for SUPPORT. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(15):1469–70. doi:10.1056/NEJMe1511158.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Drazen JM, Solomon CG, Greene MF. Informed Consent and SUPPORT. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(20):1929–31. doi:10.1056/NEJMe1304996.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Parental and staff perspectives of NICU research procedures
Authors: Christina Freibott
Ursula Guillen
Amy Mackley
Robert Locke
Publication date: 01-12-2016
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Pediatrics / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2431
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-016-0600-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Parental and staff perspectives of NICU research procedures

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

A Suspicion Index to aid screening of early-onset Niemann-Pick disease Type C (NP-C)

Homocysteine metabolism in children and adolescents with epidermolysis bullosa

GM2 gangliosidosis AB variant: novel mutation from India – a case report with a review

The three-dimensional kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters of gait in 6–10 year old typically developed children in the Cape Metropole of South Africa – a pilot study

Hypotonic fluid reduce serum sodium compared to isotonic fluids during anesthesia induction in pediatric patients undergoing maxillofacial surgery-type of infusion affects blood electrolytes and glucose: an observational study

Social and behavioural factors in Non-suspicious unexpected death in infancy; experience from metropolitan police project indigo investigation