ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
What influences women's decisions to participate in trials for prevention of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy and the puerperium: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Global survey of women's awareness of pregnancy- and postpartum-associated venous thromboembolism (World Thrombosis Day 2025).Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThromboprophlyaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy and the puerperium is widespread, but there is a lack of evidence on the risks and benefits of thromboprophylaxis within this population. Trials involving pregnant women often struggle to recruit and retain participants which makes It difficult to improve the evidence base. We undertook qualitative evaluation of patient perspectives of pregnancy/postpartum thromboprophylaxis to understand willingness to participate in future trials.
methodsWe undertook four focus groups of women who had thromboprophylaxis due to prior VTE (n = 10) or been offered thromboprophylaxis due to other risk factors (n = 12) during pregnancy and the puerperium. Focus groups were held online between November 2021 and January 2022. We recruited via social media and national special interest groups representing diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, sampling purposively for condition, age, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Participants received a £50 voucher. We transcribed focus groups and analysed data using thematic analysis.
resultsA lack of knowledge around the risks and benefits of thromboprophylaxis influenced how women perceived future trial participation. Limited understanding of thromboprophylaxis risks led to a lack of equipoise among participants who only identified benefits from treatment. Some women were unaware of why they had been given thromboprophylaxis but still perceived placebo as an inferior option. Concerns around injecting thromboprophylaxis were often minimised and ignored by healthcare professionals yet influenced treatment adherence. However, these negative experiences also motivated women to participate in future trials to receive a higher standard of care, as well as improving future care for others.
conclusionsTrial treatment adherence may be affected by negative experiences of injecting and limited understanding of why they had been offered thromboprophylaxis. To improve recruitment and retention in pregnancy and puerperium clinical trials, women need to be given clear explanations of the risks and benefits of treatment and understand where there is genuine clinical equipoise. Improved communication may also improve the experience and treatment adherence for women currently being offered thromboprophylaxis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.