Parental views on prospective consent: Experience from a pilot randomised trial recruiting extremely preterm infants during the perinatal period.

ABSTRACT

AIM: To explore parental perceptions of the consenting process and understanding of the study in a pilot randomised controlled trial wherein extremely premature infants (<29 weeks' gestation) were recruited either antenatally or by 4 h of life. METHODS: We prospectively surveyed parents who had consented, declined consent or were eligible infants in the Positioning Preterm Infants for Neuroprotection study, a low-risk intervention study in the first 72 h of life. Structured interview questions explored the process and acceptability of the consenting approach by the parents and their knowledge of the study. Additional comments made by the parents were transcribed verbatim. RESULTS: Sixty-two parents participated in the surveys; of those, 41 had provided their consent, 8 declined consent and 13 were parents of missed eligible infants. Overall, most parents reported they understood the study well before providing their consent and approaching them for consenting did not create a burden for them. A verbal explanation of the study by the study team, especially by the medical practitioners, was viewed as beneficial. Where consent was obtained in the birthing unit (imminent births and within 4 h of birthing), it was suggested that the 4-h period for obtaining post-natal consent may be too short. A deferred consent with a follow-up opportunity for obtaining informed consent could be a suitable alternative. CONCLUSION: Parents found the consenting process acceptable and indicated they had sufficient understanding of the study to provide an informed consent. Deferred consent should be explored for future, low-risk intervention studies as an alternative to prospective consent where extremely preterm infants need to be recruited in the immediate neonatal period.