Search

Background: Researchers have seldom included bereaved parents in studies of participants' views of randomised controlled trials (RCTs); hence our understanding of the impact of trials is based on skewed and incomplete samples. Little is known about parental experiences of the death of a child subsequent to their enrolment in a trial or of provision made for this experience by clinicians and trial teams. The Bereavement and RAndomised ControlLEd Trials (BRACELET) study was funded to consider bereavement in the context of paediatric intensive care (PIC) and neonatal intensive care (NIC) trials., Design and Methods: The study comprised three interlinked components: a quantitative survey of RCT activity in UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), UK RCT recruitment and mortality rates, and provision for bereavement during 2002-6; a qualitative interview study involving 51 bereaved parents and 59 clinicians and trial team members associated with five neonatal trials; and a methodological study to inform future research., Results: Fifty RCTs were identified as having enrolled babies or children from 2002 to 2006. Approximately 50% of UK NICUs and PICUs (54 NICUs, six PICUs) participated in at least one of these trials. Collectively they enrolled over 3000 children. Most enrolled small numbers, the majority of participants being enrolled by a small group of academic medical units. The proportion of deaths following trial enrolment was 17% in NIC trials and 6% in PIC trials. The qualitative study showed that trial-related decisions were made in a range of circumstances, some after extremely preterm births, others after complicated term deliveries, often under time pressures and in escalating crises. Parents' interest in trials appeared to recede initially but could re-emerge over time. They often valued opportunities to engage with a trial and were interested in more contact and information than they actually received. Clinicians often saw NICU bereavement policies as meeting parental needs, and trial participation as being of relatively minor significance in bereavement. This view may result from the positioning of clinicians' encounters with parents only in the initial stages of grief when trials were not a priority. Trial teams used a range of bereavement strategies, from no further contact to a pioneering multipart follow-up package. Communication with bereaved parents was complicated by limited contact opportunities. Trial teams were obliged to work without knowing whether their communications were appreciated, were problematic, or even whether they were received by parents. The methodological component highlighted strategies for recruitment and data collection in this sensitive setting. Recruitment by unsupported postal contact generally failed and a more personal approach via clinicians was more effective, supplemented by publicity material distributed via trusted organisations., Conclusions: A co-ordinated response to bereavement is as much a part of the running of trials as recruitment, and needs to be considered at trial inception. BRACELET has demonstrated the value and feasibility of research with bereaved parents involved in NIC trials. In order to respond to bereavement in a fair and sensitive way, as well as to better inform the design of RCTs, it is crucial that we listen to bereaved parents and evaluate new methods for so doing. More research is therefore needed into the experiences of bereavement subsequent to trial enrolment, with study of bereavement strategies in NIC trials as they are introduced. In addition, future studies should determine whether parents and triallists in PIC trials (and trials in adults) face the same issues as in NIC trials. Careful studies are necessary to explore how feedback of trial results are received and understood by bereaved and non-bereaved parents, and how individual trial teams manage this situation. An additional research area for exploring experiences of parenting twins and higher-order births in trials arose from BRACELET. Developmental research should continue to explore means of involving a wider range of parents in future research, including via publicity and specialist websites. Finally, methodological research is needed to ensure that we have the tools to explore, with parents and other relatives, as partners in research, a range of trial-related topics, which might be challenging, as the information is complex or the focus is sensitive., Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Objective: To investigate parents' views about deferred consent to inform management of trial disclosure after a child's death., Methods: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to members of the Meningitis Research Foundation UK charity, whose child had suffered from bacterial meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia within the previous 5 years. Main outcome measures were acceptability of deferred consent; timing of requesting consent; and the management of disclosure of the trial after a child's death., Results: 220 families were sent questionnaires of whom 63 (29%) were bereaved. 68 families responded (31%), of whom 19 (28%) were bereaved. The majority (67%) was willing for their child to be involved in the trial without the trial being explained to them beforehand; 70% wanted to be informed about the trial as soon as their child's condition had stabilised. In the event of a child's death before the trial could be discussed the majority of bereaved parents (66% 12/18) anticipated wanting to be told about the trial at some time. This compared with 37% (18/49) of non-bereaved families (p = 0.06). Parents' free text responses indicated that the word 'trial' held strongly negative connotations. A few parents regarded gaps in the evidence base about emergency treatments as indicating staff lacked expertise to care for a critically ill child. Bereaved parents' free text responses indicated the importance of individualised management of disclosure about a trial following a child's death., Discussion: Deferred consent is acceptable to the majority of respondents. Parents whose children had recovered differed in their views compared to bereaved parents. Most bereaved parents would want to be informed about the trial in the aftermath of a child's death, although a minority strongly opposed such disclosure. Distinction should be drawn between the views of bereaved and non-bereaved parents when considering the acceptability of different consent processes.

The provision of bereavement care is an important part of neonatal intensive care. This systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to support families and facilitate emotional adjustment following the death of a baby suggests that, while these are largely appreciated by parents who have participated in research, there has been little rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness. This review reflects on possible reasons for this; for example: NICU-led bereavement care is changing, the effectiveness of bereavement care is difficult to measure, concepts of effectiveness are not static, and ethical concerns complicate experimental research. Bereavement interventions are compassion-led and generally considered to be beneficial. New research questions and new methodological challenges are discussed with reference to two examples of evolving practice: bereavement photography and the use of ritual. Future research using innovative and sensitive RCTs and consensus amongst relevant stakeholders is suggested.

For some perinatal trials, parents can be asked to make important decisions about trial participation within limited timeframes in highly stressful circumstances. This qualitative study explores the pace of decision-making for 78 parents associated with one or more of four such trials in the UK. The themes associated with rapid decisions were concern for their baby, reactions to staff, and perceptions of the benefits and risks associated with the trial. Those who took longer to decide whether or not to participate often described similar emotions to those who made rapid decisions, but their slower decisions were because more time was available, they wanted further discussion or they found the decision particularly difficult. The majority of those who made rapid decisions felt that there were no risks associated with the trial in question, in contrast to the majority of those who made slower decisions who felt there were risks. The parents did not appear to view rapid decisions as problematic. Although there was evidence of parental vulnerability in each trial context, they largely felt that they acted swiftly and responsibly in the best interests of their child in accordance with the timeframes that were set for them.