Conectar
Providing comprehensible information is essential to the process of valid informed consent. Recruitment materials designed by sponsoring institutions in English-speaking, high-income countries are commonly translated for use in global health studies in other countries; however, key concepts are often missed, misunderstood or ‘lost in translation’. The aim of this study was to explore the language barriers to informed consent, focusing on the challenges of translating recruitment materials for maternal health studies into Zambian languages.
We used a qualitative approach, which incorporated a multistakeholder workshop (11 participants), in-depth interviews with researchers and translators (8 participants) and two community-based focus groups with volunteers from community advisory boards (20 participants). Content analysis was used to identify terms commonly occurring in recruitment materials prior to the workshop. The framework analysis approach was used to analyse interview data, and a simple inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse focus group data.
The study was based in Lusaka, Zambia.
The workshop highlighted difficulties in translating research terms and pregnancy-specific terms, as well as widespread concern that current templates are too long, use overly formal language and are designed with little input from local teams. Framework analysis of in-depth interviews identified barriers to participant understanding relating to design and development of recruitment materials, language, local context and communication styles. Focus group participants confirmed these findings and suggested potential solutions to ensure the language and content of recruitment materials can be better understood.
Our findings demonstrate that the way in which recruitment materials are currently designed, translated and disseminated may not enable potential trial participants to fully understand the information provided. Instead of using overly complex institutional templates, recruitment materials should be created through an iterative and interactive process that provides truly comprehensible information in a format appropriate for its intended participants.
by Shawn Walker, Emma Spillane, Kate Stringer, Lauren Trepte, Siân M. Davies, Jacana Bresson, Jane Sandall, Andrew Shennan, the OptiBreech Collaborative
OptiBreech collaborative care is a multi-disciplinary care pathway for breech presentation at term, with continuity from a breech specialist midwife, including where chosen, for vaginal breech birth (VBB). Pilot randomised trial using unblinded 1:1 parallel group allocation to OptiBreech versus standard care, within a cohort. Participants were women with a breech-presenting fetus > 33 weeks, at four sites in England, January–June 2022. A two-stage consent process was used. Participants consented to undergo random selection to be offered a ‘new care process’, with a choice to accept it, or not. Primary objectives were to identify recruitment, acceptance, and attrition rates. Randomisation procedures and potential primary outcomes for a substantive study were also feasibility-tested. 68 women were randomised between January–June 2022. The consent process was acceptable to participants, but randomisation was unacceptable to women who specifically sought OptiBreech care. Two women withdrew due to concerns about sharing personal information. More women planned a VBB when randomised to OptiBreech Care (23.5% vs 0, p = .002, 95% CI = 9.3%,37.8%). Women randomised to OptiBreech care had: lower rates of cephalic presentation at birth (38.2% vs 54.5%), higher rates of vaginal birth (32.4% vs 24.2%), lower rates of in-labour caesarean birth (20.6% vs 36.4%), lower rates of neonatal intensive care (5.9% vs 9.1%), and lower rates of severe neonatal morbidity (2.9% vs 9.1%). Randomisation was stopped on the advice of the steering committee before the planned sample of 104, as lack of access to VBB within standard care prohibited comparison of outcomes. Demand for VBB is sufficient for a cohort study, but comparison of outcomes by 1:1 randomisation is not feasible. OptiBreech care would be best evaluated using stepped wedge cluster randomisation. Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300582). Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN 14521381.
FreshRSS 