Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: More effective recruitment strategies like alternative approaches to consent are needed to facilitate adequately powered trials. Witholding Enteral feeds Around Transfusion was a multicentre, randomised, pilot trial that compared withholding and continuing feeds around transfusion. The primary clinical outcome was necrotising enterocolitis. The trial used simplified opt-out consent with concise parent information and no consent form. OBJECTIVE: To explore the views and experiences of parents and health professionals on the acceptability and feasibility of opt-out consent in randomised comparative effectiveness trials. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive interview-based study nested within a randomised trial. Semistructured interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. SETTING: Eleven neonatal units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven parents and ten health professionals with experience of simplified consent. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: 'opt-out consent operationalised as verbal opt-in consent', 'opt-out consent normalises participation while preserving parental choice', 'opt-out consent as an ongoing process of informed choice', 'consent without a consent form' and 'choosing to opt out of a comparative effectiveness trial', with two subthemes: 'wanting "normal care"' and 'a belief that feeding is better'. CONCLUSION: Introducing a novel form of consent proved challenging in practice. The principle of a simplified, opt-out approach to consent was generally considered feasible and acceptable by health professionals for a neonatal comparative effectiveness trial. The priority for parents was having the right to decide about trial participation, and they did not see opt-out consent as undermining this. Describing a study as 'opt-out' can help to normalise participation and emphasise that parents can withdraw consent.

More information Original publication

DOI

10.1136/archdischild-2020-319545

Type

Journal article

Publication Date

2021-05-01T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

106

Pages

244 - 250

Total pages

6

Keywords

ethics, neonatology, qualitative research, Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Enteral Nutrition, Enterocolitis, Necrotizing, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Life Support Care, Male, Neonatology, Parents, Patient Selection, Qualitative Research, Third-Party Consent, Withholding Treatment