Search

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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, nearly 250 million children (43% of all children under 5 years of age) are at risk of compromised neurodevelopment due to poverty, stunting, and lack of stimulation. We tested the independent and combined effects of improved water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) and improved infant and young child feeding (IYCF) on early child development (ECD) among children enrolled in the Sanitation Hygiene Infant Nutrition Efficacy (SHINE) trial in rural Zimbabwe. Methods and findings: SHINE was a cluster-randomized community-based 2×2 factorial trial. A total of 5,280 pregnant women were enrolled from 211 clusters (defined as the catchment area of 1–4 village health workers [VHWs] employed by the Zimbabwean Ministry of Health and Child Care). Clusters were randomly allocated to standard of care, IYCF (20 g of small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplement per day from age 6 to 18 months plus complementary feeding counseling), WASH (ventilated improved pit latrine, handwashing stations, chlorine, liquid soap, and play yard), and WASH + IYCF. Primary outcomes were child length-for-age Z-score and hemoglobin concentration at 18 months of age. Children who completed the 18-month visit and turned 2 years (102–112 weeks) between March 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017, were eligible for the ECD substudy. We prespecified that primary inferences would be drawn from findings of children born to HIV-negative mothers; these results are presented in this paper. A total of 1,655 HIV-unexposed children (64% of those eligible) were recruited into the ECD substudy from 206 clusters and evaluated for ECD at 2 years of age using the Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT) to assess gross motor, fine motor, language, and social skills; the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) to assess vocabulary and grammar; the A-not-B test to assess object permanence; and a self-control task. Outcomes were analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. For all ECD outcomes, there was not a statistical interaction between the IYCF and WASH interventions, so we estimated the effects of the interventions by comparing the 2 IYCF groups with the 2 non-IYCF groups and the 2 WASH groups with the 2 non-WASH groups. The mean (95% CI) total MDAT score was modestly higher in the IYCF groups compared to the non-IYCF groups in unadjusted analysis: 1.35 (0.24, 2.46; p = 0.017); this difference did not persist in adjusted analysis: 0.79 (−0.22, 1.68; p = 0.057). There was no evidence of impact of the IYCF intervention on the CDI, A-not-B, or self-control tests. Among children in the WASH groups compared to those in the non-WASH groups, mean scores were not different for the MDAT, A-not-B, or self-control tests; mean CDI score was not different in unadjusted analysis (0.99 [95% CI −1.18, 3.17]) but was higher in children in the WASH groups in adjusted analysis (1.81 [0.01, 3.61]). The main limitation of the study was the specific time window for substudy recruitment, meaning not all children from the main trial were enrolled. Conclusions: We found little evidence that the IYCF and WASH interventions implemented in SHINE caused clinically important improvements in child development at 2 years of age. Interventions that directly target neurodevelopment (e.g., early stimulation) or that more comprehensively address the multifactorial nature of neurodevelopment may be required to support healthy development of vulnerable children. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01824940 In this substudy from a 2x2 factorial cluster-randomized trial, Melissa Gladstone and colleagues assess whether improved WASH and/or feeding provide a benefit to early child development. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Some 43% of children globally fail to reach their full developmental potential due to stunting and poverty. Current evidence shows that improved nutrition has a modest effect on early child development. Improving water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) may plausibly benefit neurodevelopment through reduced illness and improved gut health (through improving nutrient absorption and optimizing gut–brain communication). What did the researchers do and find?: The Sanitation Hygiene Infant Nutrition Efficacy (SHINE) trial tested the individual and combined effects of improved complementary feeding (provision of a small quantity of lipid-based nutrient supplement from 6 to 18 months of age, with complementary feeding counseling) and improved household WASH (provision of a pit latrine, handwashing stations, soap, chlorine, and hygiene counseling) on early child development at 24 months. In all, 1,655 children born to HIV-negative women were assessed for gross motor, fine motor, language, cognitive, and social development using tools that were designed and adapted for rural Zimbabwe. We found little evidence that the complementary feeding or WASH interventions tested improved child neurodevelopment at 2 years of age. What do these findings mean?: Complementary feeding and WASH interventions (as described above) may not have a clinically significant impact on child neurodevelopment. More holistic approaches and interventions that explicitly target early child development may be needed to substantially impact child neurodevelopment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]