Arch. Dis. Child

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in ADC Online
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Snowdon, C
Right arrow Articles by Garcia, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Snowdon, C
Right arrow Articles by Garcia, J
Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2004;89:F208
© 2004 Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

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

C Snowdon1,2, D R Elbourne1, J Garcia1

1 Medical Statistics Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
2 Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RF, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
C Snowdon
Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RF, UK; cms1000{at}cam.ac.uk

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.


Keywords: perinatal postmortem examinations; bereaved parents; attitudes; interview




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Obstet GynecolHome page
K. J. Gold, V. K. Dalton, and T. L. Schwenk
Hospital Care for Parents After Perinatal Death
Obstet. Gynecol., May 1, 2007; 109(5): 1156 - 1166.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.Home page
K S Hoehn, G Wernovsky, J Rychik, J W Gaynor, T L Spray, C Feudtner, and R M Nelson
What factors are important to parents making decisions about neonatal research?
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., May 1, 2005; 90(3): F267 - f269.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Pathol.Home page
Perinatal postmortems: professionals, parents, and clinical trials
J. Clin. Pathol., July 1, 2004; 57(7): 701 - 701.
[Full Text]


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.Home page
M McDermott
The continuing decline of autopsies in clinical trials: is there any way back?
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., May 1, 2004; 89(3): F198 - F199.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.Home page
C Snowdon, D R Elbourne, and J Garcia
Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: a review of the literature
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., May 1, 2004; 89(3): F200 - F203.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.Home page
C Snowdon, D R Elbourne, and J Garcia
Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: attitudes of neonatologists and pathologists
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., May 1, 2004; 89(3): F204 - F207.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
ARCH DIS CHILD FETAL NEONATAL ED ED PRACTICE
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health