Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Factors influencing the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials: A mixed-methods systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal–fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem.

          Methods and findings

          We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies.

          We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women’s decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women’s willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention’s risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women’s participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people.

          Conclusions

          This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women’s engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.

          Abstract

          Using a mixed-methods approach, Mridula Shankar and colleagues investigate the reasons why those who are pregnant and breastfeeding are under-represented in clinical trials.

          Author summary

          Why was this study done?
          • Pregnant and lactating women and people are routinely excluded from participating in drug and vaccine clinical trials, resulting in limited options for prevention and treatment of medical conditions.

          • Challenges to including pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical research have been identified at multiple levels of the research and health systems, but the full range of barriers and facilitators to participation are not well known.

          What did the researchers do and find?
          • We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review and identified 60 research articles from 27 countries on the views and experiences of pregnant and lactating women’s participation in clinical research, from the perspectives of cisgender women, family and community members, health workers, and people involved in the conduct of clinical research.

          • Using a thematic synthesis approach, we identified barriers affecting participation including women having a limited appetite for risk during pregnancy and lactation, concerns about women’s bodily autonomy during pregnancy, and challenges in obtaining ethical approval for clinical research with pregnant women.

          • We also identified facilitators of participation including the potential for personal health benefits, expectations of higher quality care, trust in the medical and research systems, and strong teamwork between researchers and health workers.

          What do these findings mean?
          • Our findings demonstrate the need for multipronged strategies to address barriers and reinforce facilitators across the various levels of the research and health systems.

          • The actions that are needed to overcome these barriers and reinforce facilitators must be discussed, prioritised, and adapted to specific contexts.

          • All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people.

          Related collections

          Most cited references102

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions

          Background Improving the design and implementation of evidence-based practice depends on successful behaviour change interventions. This requires an appropriate method for characterising interventions and linking them to an analysis of the targeted behaviour. There exists a plethora of frameworks of behaviour change interventions, but it is not clear how well they serve this purpose. This paper evaluates these frameworks, and develops and evaluates a new framework aimed at overcoming their limitations. Methods A systematic search of electronic databases and consultation with behaviour change experts were used to identify frameworks of behaviour change interventions. These were evaluated according to three criteria: comprehensiveness, coherence, and a clear link to an overarching model of behaviour. A new framework was developed to meet these criteria. The reliability with which it could be applied was examined in two domains of behaviour change: tobacco control and obesity. Results Nineteen frameworks were identified covering nine intervention functions and seven policy categories that could enable those interventions. None of the frameworks reviewed covered the full range of intervention functions or policies, and only a minority met the criteria of coherence or linkage to a model of behaviour. At the centre of a proposed new framework is a 'behaviour system' involving three essential conditions: capability, opportunity, and motivation (what we term the 'COM-B system'). This forms the hub of a 'behaviour change wheel' (BCW) around which are positioned the nine intervention functions aimed at addressing deficits in one or more of these conditions; around this are placed seven categories of policy that could enable those interventions to occur. The BCW was used reliably to characterise interventions within the English Department of Health's 2010 tobacco control strategy and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's guidance on reducing obesity. Conclusions Interventions and policies to change behaviour can be usefully characterised by means of a BCW comprising: a 'behaviour system' at the hub, encircled by intervention functions and then by policy categories. Research is needed to establish how far the BCW can lead to more efficient design of effective interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

            Background There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies. Methods We describe thematic synthesis, outline several steps for its conduct and illustrate the process and outcome of this approach using a completed review of health promotion research. Thematic synthesis has three stages: the coding of text 'line-by-line'; the development of 'descriptive themes'; and the generation of 'analytical themes'. While the development of descriptive themes remains 'close' to the primary studies, the analytical themes represent a stage of interpretation whereby the reviewers 'go beyond' the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses. The use of computer software can facilitate this method of synthesis; detailed guidance is given on how this can be achieved. Results We used thematic synthesis to combine the studies of children's views and identified key themes to explore in the intervention studies. Most interventions were based in school and often combined learning about health benefits with 'hands-on' experience. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective. Thematic synthesis enabled us to stay 'close' to the results of the primary studies, synthesising them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses. Conclusion We compare thematic synthesis to other methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, discussing issues of context and rigour. Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series

              The GRADE-CERQual (‘Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research’) approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Journal
                PLoS Med
                PLoS Med
                plos
                PLOS Medicine
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1549-1277
                1549-1676
                30 May 2024
                May 2024
                : 21
                : 5
                : e1004405
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ] Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [3 ] University Library, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
                [4 ] Women’s and Children’s Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
                [5 ] Concept Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland/Bangkok, Thailand
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4652-6396
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7831-2336
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-7096
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1182-6679
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5681-8328
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8680-7053
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7420-9849
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8871-5072
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1726-2798
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1059-061X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2538-4955
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-0998
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4179-4682
                Article
                PMEDICINE-D-23-03776
                10.1371/journal.pmed.1004405
                11139290
                38814991
                61e2876a-c859-4c09-9bd4-d6a282157a21
                © 2024 Shankar et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 20 December 2023
                : 19 April 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 41
                Funding
                Funded by: MSD for Mothers
                Award ID: MFM-22-159697
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000923, Australian Research Council;
                Award ID: DE200100264
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001782, University of Melbourne;
                Award ID: Dame Kate Campbell Fellowship
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000925, National Health and Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: GNT1194248
                Award Recipient :
                The research in this publication was supported by funding from MSD (grant MFM-22-159697 to Concept Foundation), through its MSD for Mothers initiative ( https://www.msdformothers.com/) and is the sole responsibility of the authors. MSD for Mothers is an initiative of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, U.S.A. MAB’s time is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200100264) and a Dame Kate Campbell Fellowship (University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences). JPV is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator grant (GNT1194248). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Maternal Health
                Pregnancy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Pregnancy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Decision Making
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Finance
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content73

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors1,498