↓ Skip to main content

Pregnant womens’ concerns when invited to a randomized trial: a qualitative case control study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pregnant womens’ concerns when invited to a randomized trial: a qualitative case control study
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12884-015-0641-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrien Oude Rengerink, Sabine Logtenberg, Lotty Hooft, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Ben Willem Mol

Abstract

Pregnant women were excluded from clinical trials until the 1990s, but the Food and Drug Administration nowadays allows - and even encourages - responsible inclusion of pregnant women in trials with adequate safety monitoring. Still, randomized trials in pregnant women face specific enrolment challenges. Previous studies have focused on barriers to trial participation in studies that had failed to recruit sufficient participants. Our aim was to identify barriers and motivators for participation in a range of clinical trials being conducted in the Netherlands, regardless of recruitment performance. We performed a qualitative case control study in women who had been asked in 2010 to participate in one of eight clinical trials during pregnancy or shortly after giving birth. Both participants and non-participants of these clinical trials were invited for a face-to-face interview that addressed motives for participation and non-participation. We started the interview in an open fashion, asking the women for their main motive for participation or non-participation. When no new information emerged in this open part, we continued with a semi-structured interview, guided by a topic list. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using a constant-comparative approach. Two researchers identified barriers and facilitators for participation, conjoined into main themes. Of 28 women invited for the interview, 21 agreed to be interviewed (12 participants and 9 non-participants). For 5 of the 12 participants, contribution to scientific research was their main motive, while 5 had participated because the intervention seemed favorable and was not available outside the trial. Key motives for non-participation (n = 9) were a negative association or a dislike of the intervention, either because it might do harm (n = 6) or for practical reasons (n = 3). Combining the open and topic list guided interviews we constructed seven main themes that influence the pregnant women's decision to participate: external influence, research and healthcare, perception own situation, study design, intervention, information and counselling, and uncertainty. Among seven main themes that influence pregnant women's decision to participate, uncertainty about scientific research or the intervention was reported to be of considerable importance. Measures should be taken to habituate pregnant women more to scientific research, and further evaluation of opt-out consent deserves attention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 3%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 27 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 30 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,428,159
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#3,471
of 4,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,518
of 267,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#83
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.