Skip to main content
PMC home page
Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition logoLink to Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition
. 2004 May;89(3):F208–F211. doi: 10.1136/adc.2003.041392

Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: attitudes of bereaved parents

C Snowdon, D Elbourne, J Garcia
PMCID: PMC1721668  PMID: 15102721

Abstract

Background: Interviews with neonatologists in a related study had revealed a degree of discomfort with approaching bereaved parents for postmortem examinations (PMs) and a widespread concern that parents should not be further distressed or feel under pressure to consent.

Objective: To report the attitudes of bereaved parents to trial related perinatal PMs, in the light of declining perinatal PM rates and poor levels of participation in pathology studies.

Methods: A qualitative study was carried out, using semistructured interviews. The study involved 11 interviews with 18 bereaved parents from five UK neonatal units. The parents had consented to the enrolment of their baby in one of two neonatal trials.

Results: The data provide support for the careful approach described by neonatologists in a related study, but also suggest that it may be possible to approach more parents without undermining their wellbeing. The interviews show the variety of reactions to PMs that one would expect, from parents who were clear that they did not want a PM to others who felt that they needed the information from the examination. Between these extremes were parents who were initially discomforted by the idea but who then made the decision to go ahead. Parents who elected to have a PM did so for their own needs, or to contribute to a trial, or for both reasons. The fact that the subject was raised was generally not seen as inappropriate, and none stated that they felt that they were actually pressured into making their decision. The data also suggest that for some parents the degree of caution and selectivity exercised by the neonatologists may not be entirely appropriate. In two cases, consent for the PM was driven by a sense of making an altruistic contribution to research, and, in another two, altruism was expressed in the context of their own desire for information from a PM.

Conclusions: It is important to determine whether trial related pathology studies are considered by professionals and lay people to be worth while and feasible. If there is support for such studies, the challenge is to develop the means to approach more parents in the most sensitive way.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (101.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ainsworth S. B., Beresford M. W., Milligan D. W., Shaw N. J., Matthews J. N., Fenton A. C., Ward Platt M. P. Pumactant and poractant alfa for treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in neonates born at 25-29 weeks' gestation: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2000 Apr 22;355(9213):1387–1392. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02136-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Campbell H., Surry S. A., Royle E. M. A review of randomised controlled trials published in Archives of Disease in Childhood from 1982-96. Arch Dis Child. 1998 Aug;79(2):192–197. doi: 10.1136/adc.79.2.192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chiswick M. Perinatal and infant postmortem examination. BMJ. 1995 Jan 21;310(6973):141–142. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6973.141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cottreau C., McIntyre L., Favara B. E. Professional attitudes toward the autopsy. A survey of clinicians and pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol. 1989 Nov;92(5):673–676. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/92.5.673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mason S. Obtaining informed consent for neonatal randomised controlled trials--an "elaborate ritual"? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997 May;76(3):F143–F145. doi: 10.1136/fn.76.3.f143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. McIntosh N. Informed consent in clinical trials. Strengthen ethical committees' role. BMJ. 1993 Dec 4;307(6917):1496–1496. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6917.1496-b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Raffles A., Ropel C. Perinatal and infant postmortem examination. Non-invasive investigations are also helpful if permission for a necropsy is refused. BMJ. 1995 Apr 1;310(6983):870–870. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6983.870b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Rankin Judith, Wright Chris, Lind Tom. Cross sectional survey of parents' experience and views of the postmortem examination. BMJ. 2002 Apr 6;324(7341):816–818. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Snowdon C., Elbourne D. R., Garcia J. Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: a review of the literature. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004 May;89(3):F200–F203. doi: 10.1136/adc.2002.012740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Snowdon C., Elbourne D. R., Garcia J. Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: attitudes of neonatologists and pathologists. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004 May;89(3):F204–F207. doi: 10.1136/adc.2002.012732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Snowdon C., Elbourne D., Garcia J. Zelen randomization: attitudes of parents participating in a neonatal clinical trial. Control Clin Trials. 1999 Apr;20(2):149–171. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(98)00049-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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 Nov;45(9):1337–1355. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00063-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Snowdon C., Garcia J., Elbourne D. Reactions of participants to the results of a randomised controlled trial: exploratory study. BMJ. 1998 Jul 4;317(7150):21–26. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7150.21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Start R. D., Sherwood S. J., Kent G., Angel C. A. Audit study of next of kin's satisfaction with clinical necropsy service. BMJ. 1996 Jun 15;312(7045):1516–1516. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7045.1516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. VanMarter L. J., Taylor F., Epstein M. F. Parental and physician-related determinants of consent for neonatal autopsy. Am J Dis Child. 1987 Feb;141(2):149–153. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1987.04460020039023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES