Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Emerging Topics and Controversies in Neonatology pp 559–571Cite as

Research in the Newborn Period

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 734 Accesses

Abstract

Neonatal medicine has progressed rapidly in recent years. The development of new therapies for this population has forged ahead, such that neonatal clinicians now have a bewildering array of treatments, devices, medications and strategies to aid in the care of sick and preterm newborn infants. However, neonatal intensive care itself, as a specialty is in its infancy. Neonatologists have embraced the advances with enthusiasm, but research has been slower and it is fair to say that the evidence supporting the use of some therapies in the neonatal population is limited. Conducting research in newborn infants is not always straightforward or easy. Here, we discuss some of the challenges that face both researchers and parents in the neonatal period, with particular focus on informed consent and the choice of outcome measures in research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. McDonnell K. Volunteering children. Proc Am Cathol Philos Assoc. 1990;63:182–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kodish E. Informed consent for pediatric research: is it really possible? J Pediatr. 2003;142(2):89–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smyth RM, Jacoby A, Elbourne D. Deciding to join a perinatal randomised controlled trial: experiences and views of pregnant women enroled in the Magpie Trial. Midwifery. 2012;28(4):E478–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mason SA, Allmark PJ. Obtaining informed consent to neonatal randomised controlled trials: interviews with parents and clinicians in the Euricon study. Lancet. 2000;356(9247):2045–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Levene M, Wright I, Griffiths G. Is informed consent in neonatal randomised controlled trials ritual? Lancet. 1996;347(8999):475.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ballard HO, et al. Neonatal research and the validity of informed consent obtained in the perinatal period. J Perinatol. 2004;24(7):409–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McCarthy KN, et al. Parental opinion of consent in neonatal research. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019;104(4):F409–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freer Y, et al. More information, less understanding: a randomized study on consent issues in neonatal research. Pediatrics. 2009;123(5):1301–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McKechnie L, Gill AB. Consent for neonatal research. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2006;91(5):F374–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Report of a review of the research framework in North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust (Griffiths Report). Leeds: NHS Executive; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harth SC, Thong YH. Sociodemographic and motivational characteristics of parents who volunteer their children for clinical research: a controlled study. BMJ. 1990;300(6736):1372–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Amin SB, McDermott MP, Shamoo AE. Clinical trials of drugs used off-label in neonates: ethical issues and alternative study designs. Account Res. 2008;15(3):168–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Boyle RJ, McIntosh N. Ethical considerations in neonatal resuscitation: clinical and research issues. Semin Neonatol. 2001;6(3):261–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brierley J, Larcher V. Emergency research in children: options for ethical recruitment. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(7):429–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vain NE, et al. Oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal suctioning of meconium-stained neonates before delivery of their shoulders: multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9434):597–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ayers S, et al. Parents report positive experiences about enrolling babies in a cord-related clinical trial before birth. Acta Paediatr. 2015;104(4):e164–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burgess E, et al. Consent for clinical research in the neonatal intensive care unit: a retrospective survey and a prospective study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2003;88(4):F280–5; discussion F285–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Jansen-van der Weide MC, et al. Clinical trial decisions in difficult circumstances: parental consent under time pressure. Pediatrics. 2015;136(4):e983–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lockwood CJ, Kuczynski E. Markers of risk for preterm delivery. J Perinat Med. 1999;27(1):5–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cuttini M. Intrapartum prevention of meconium aspiration syndrome. Lancet. 2004;364(9434):560–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lantos JD. The “inclusion benefit” in clinical trials. J Pediatr. 1999;134(2):130–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(9):1337–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Iwanowski P, et al. Informed consent for clinical trials in acute coronary syndromes and stroke following the European Clinical Trials Directive: investigators’ experiences and attitudes. Trials. 2008;9:45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kompanje EJ, et al. Medical research in emergency research in the European Union member states: tensions between theory and practice. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(4):496–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. European Commission. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Off J Eur Commun. 2001;34–44. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2001_20/dir_2001_20_en.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2019.

  26. Allmark P, Mason S. Improving the quality of consent to randomised controlled trials by using continuous consent and clinician training in the consent process. J Med Ethics. 2006;32(8):439–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Braunholtz DA. A note on Zelen randomization: attitudes of parents participating in a neonatal clinical trial. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(6):569–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Megone C, et al. The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the analytical (theoretical/philosophical) research. Trials. 2016;17(1):443.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Worrall J. Evidence and ethics in medicine. Perspect Biol Med. 2008;51(3):418–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Silverman WA, Altman DG. Patients’ preferences and randomised trials. Lancet. 1996;347(8995):171–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Snowdon C, Elbourne D, Garcia J. Zelen randomization: attitudes of parents participating in a neonatal clinical trial. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(2):149–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mason S. Obtaining informed consent for neonatal randomised controlled trials—an “elaborate ritual”? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997;76(3):F143–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Carbajal R, et al. Sedation and analgesia practices in neonatal intensive care units (EUROPAIN): results from a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(10):796–812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. OPTI-Prem: optimising neonatal service provision for preterm babies born between 27 and 31 weeks of gestation in England (OPTI-Prem). ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02994849. 2018.

  35. Gale C, et al. Research ethics committee decision-making in relation to an efficient neonatal trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017;102(4):F291–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cartwright K, et al. Parents’ perceptions of their infants’ participation in randomized controlled trials. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2011;40(5):555–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Morley CJ, et al. What do parents think about enrolling their premature babies in several research studies? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90(3):F225–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials. 2010;11:31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Truong TH, et al. Altruism among participants in cancer clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2011;8(5):616–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Korotchikova I, et al. Presence of both parents during consent process in non-therapeutic neonatal research increases positive response. Acta Paediatr. 2010;99(10):1484–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Freemantle N, Calvert MJ. Interpreting composite outcomes in trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c3529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. SUPPORT Study Group of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Neonatal Research Network, et al. Target ranges of oxygen saturation in extremely preterm infants. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(21):1959–69.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK

    Kamini Yadav

  2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Elaine M. Boyle

Authors
  1. Kamini Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elaine M. Boyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine M. Boyle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, George Davies Centre for Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Elaine M. Boyle

  2. Department of Health Sciences, George Davies Centre for Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Jonathan Cusack

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yadav, K., Boyle, E.M. (2020). Research in the Newborn Period. In: Boyle, E., Cusack, J. (eds) Emerging Topics and Controversies in Neonatology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28829-7_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28829-7_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28828-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28829-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation