Parental perspectives about information and deferred versus two-stage consent in studies of neonatal asphyxia

Abstract

ObjectiveThe ALBINO Trial (NCT03162653) investigates effects of very early postnatal allopurinol on neurocognitive outcome following perinatal asphyxia where prenatal informed consent (IC) is impossible. Ethically and legally, waiver of consent and/or deferred consent (DC) is acceptable in such an emergency. Short oral/two-step consent (SOC, brief information and oral consent followed by IC) has recently been investigated.MethodsMixed-methods analysis of parental opinions on DC versus SOC in the context of neonatal asphyxia in a survey at two German centres. Prospective parents (ProP), parents of healthy newborns (PNeo) and parents of asphyxiated infants (PAx) born between 2006 and 2016 were invited.Results108 of 422 parents participated (ProP:43; PNeo:35; PAx:30). Most parents trusted physicians, wanted preinterventional information and agreed that in emergencies interventions should begin immediately. Intergroup and intragroup variability existed for questions about DC and SOC. In the ALBINO Trial situation, 55% preferred SOC, and 26% reported DC without information might adversely affect their trust. Only 3% reported to potentially take legal action after DC. PAx were significantly more likely to support DC. PAx more frequently expressed positive emotions and appreciation for neonatal research. In open-ended questions, parents gave many constructive recommendations.ConclusionIn this survey, parents expressed diverse opinions on consent, but the majority preferred SOC over DC. Parents who had experienced emergency admission of their asphyxiated neonates were more trusting. Obtaining parental perspectives is essential when designing studies, while being cognisant that these groups of parents may not represent the opinion of all parents.