Would you like to participate in this trial? The practice of informed consent in intrapartum research in the last 30 years

Autoři: Mariana Widmer aff001;  Mercedes Bonet aff001;  Ana Pilar Betrán aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Geneva, Switzerland aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228063



Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical conduct and protection of the rights and wellbeing of participants in clinical research. Therefore, it is important to identify the most appropriate moments for the participants to be informed and to give consent, so that they are able to make a responsible and autonomous decision. However, the optimal timing of consent in clinical research during the intrapartum period remains controversial, and currently, there is no clear guidance.


We aimed to describe practices of informed consent in intrapartum care clinical research in the last three decades, as reported in uterotonics for postpartum haemorrhage prevention trials.


This is a secondary analysis of the studies included in the Cochrane review entitled “Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis” published in 2018. All the reports included in the Cochrane network meta-analysis were eligible for inclusion in this analysis, except for those reported in languages other than English, French or Spanish. We extracted and synthesized data on the time each of the components of the informed consent process occurred.


We assessed data from 192 studies, out of 196 studies included in the Cochrane review. The majority of studies (59.9%, 115 studies) reported that women were informed about the study, without specifying the timing. When reported, most studies informed women at admission to the facility for childbirth. Most of the studies reported that consent was sought, but only 59.9% reported the timing, which in most of the cases, was at admission for childbirth. Among these, 32 studies obtained consent in the active phase of labour, 17 in the latent phase and in 10 studies the labour status was unknown. Women were consented antenatally in 6 studies and in 8 studies the consent was obtained indistinctly during antenatal care or at admission. Most of the studies did not specified who was the person who sought the informed consent.


Practices of informed consent in trials on use of uterotonics for prevention of postpartum haemorrhage showed variability and substandard reporting. Informed consent sought at admission for childbirth was the most frequent approach implemented in these trials.

Klíčová slova:

Antenatal care – Birth – Labor and delivery – Metaanalysis – Network analysis – Postpartum hemorrhage – Pregnancy – Research reporting guidelines


1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 646 Summary: Ethical Considerations for Including Women as Research Participants. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):1127–8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001145 26488519

2. ICH Harmonised Guideline. Integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for good clinical practice E6 (R2). U.S.A.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration, 2018.

3. Beauchamp TL, Childress J.F. Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1979.

4. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81(3):4–13. 25951677

5. The Belmont Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of health, education and welfare (DHEW), 1978 30 September 1978.

6. World Health Organization. Standards and operational guidance for ethics review of health-related research with human participants. Guidance document. Geneva, Switzerland. 2011.

7. CIOMS. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2016.

8. Reid R, Susic D, Pathirana S, Tracy S, Welsh AW. The ethics of obtaining consent in labour for research. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51(6):485–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01341.x 21929542

9. Phipps H, de Vries B, Kuah S, Hyett JA. When should women be recruited to intrapartum research projects? A retrospective review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(11):1264–70. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12243 23961736

10. Vernon G, Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Issues of informed consent for intrapartum trials: a suggested consent pathway from the experience of the Release trial [ISRCTN13204258]. Trials. 2006;7.

11. Lavender T, Walkinshaw SA, Walton I. A prospective study of women's views of factors contributing to a positive birth experience. Midwifery. 1999;15(1):40–6. doi: 10.1016/s0266-6138(99)90036-0 10373872

12. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists. Obtaining valid consent to participate in perinatal research where consent is time critical. Clinical Governance Advice No. 6a. February 2016.

13. Lawton J, Hallowell N, Snowdon C, Norman JE, Carruthers K, Denison FC. Written versus verbal consent: a qualitative study of stakeholder views of consent procedures used at the time of recruitment into a peripartum trial conducted in an emergency setting. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0196-7 28539111

14. Gallos ID, Williams HM, Price MJ, Merriel A, Gee H, Lissauer D, et al. Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2018;(4).

15. World Health Organization. WHO recommendation: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva, Switzerland. 2018.

16. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276(8):637–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.276.8.637 8773637

17. Jackson A, Henry R, Avery N, VanDenKerkhof E, Milne B. Informed consent for labour epidurals: what labouring women want to know. Can J Anaesth. 2000;47(11):1068–73. doi: 10.1007/BF03027957 11097535

18. Affleck PJ, Waisel DB, Cusick JM, Van Decar T. Recall of risks following labor epidural analgesia. J Clin Anesth. 1998;10(2):141–4. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8180(97)00258-4 9524900

19. Patel D, Nasir S, Elati A, Vernon G, Weeks AD. Historical trends in the timing of informed consent for research into intrapartum complications. BJOG. 2012;119(3):361–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03204.x 22168822

20. Betran AP, Bergel E, Griffin S, Melo A, Nguyen MH, Carbonell A, et al. Provision of medical supply kits to improve quality of antenatal care in Mozambique: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(1):e57–e65. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30421-7 29241615

21. Countdown to 2030 Collaboration. Countdown to 2030: tracking progress towards universal coverage for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health. Lancet. 2018 Apr 14;391(10129):1538–1548. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30104-1 29395268

22. Boatin AA, Schlotheuber A, Betran AP, Moller A-B, Barros AJD, Boerma T, et al. Within country inequalities in caesarean section rates: observational study of 72 low and middle income countries. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2018;360:k55.

23. Greenberg RS. The Impact of Prenatal-Care in Different Social-Groups. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;145(7):797–801. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(83)90681-6 6682290

24. Fiscella K. Does Prenatal-Care Improve Birth Outcomes—a Critical-Review. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85(3):468–79. 7862395

25. Carroli G, Villar J, Piaggio G, Khan-Neelofur D, Gulmezoglu AM, Mugford M, et al. WHO systematic review of randomised controlled trials of routine antenatal care. Lancet. 2001;357(9268):1565–70. 11377643

26. Lanz D, Moore P, Daru J. Consent in obstetric emergency research—there is yet more to learn. BJOG. 2018. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15340 29924903

27. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C, Altman DG, Barbour V, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2010;340:c332.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1