↓ Skip to main content

Parental opinion of consent in neonatal research

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Disease in Childhood -- Fetal & Neonatal Edition, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Parental opinion of consent in neonatal research
Published in
Archives of Disease in Childhood -- Fetal & Neonatal Edition, September 2018
DOI 10.1136/archdischild-2018-315289
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Nora McCarthy, Niamh C Ryan, Darragh T O’Shea, Kieran Doran, Richard Greene, Vicki Livingstone, C Anthony Ryan, Geraldine B Boylan, Eugene M Dempsey

Abstract

Neonatal research, particularly neonatal emergency research is a challenging area, notably in relation to obtaining valid prospective informed consent. The aim of this study is to determine parental perceptions of the consent process involved in performing research in newborn care, to explore methods used to obtain consent and their acceptability to parents. A parental questionnaire was developed that examined attitudes towards research and hypothetical research studies, in which the acceptability of various methods of consent was examined (informed, waived, deferred). These research scenarios were of varying time sensitivity and perceived risk level. The study setting was an Irish maternity hospital. There were 600 responses to the questionnaire. In 93% of cases, parents felt that their involvement in the consent process was essential. In emergency situations, 52% felt full prospective informed consent was necessary; however, almost 28% of parents would feel pressure to consent. Most (75%) parents would prefer to be approached to discuss neonatal research studies antenatally, irrespective of study type and 40% of parents felt that neonates involved in research studies received overall better care. Acceptability of deferred consent was greater than waived, and was highest for the more emergency-based scenarios presented. Parents feel that they should play a central role in research involving their children. There were differences in the acceptability of various consent methods with strongest agreement for informed consent and lowest agreement for waived consent. Parents were more willing to accede to deferred consent in the cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenario study. These findings provide useful insights to consent strategies in future newborn research studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 12 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,013,316
of 20,378,860 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Disease in Childhood -- Fetal & Neonatal Edition
#123
of 1,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,248
of 292,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Disease in Childhood -- Fetal & Neonatal Edition
#9
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,378,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,787 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.