Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40468246›Full record

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.

Fiona C Sampson, Sarah Davis, Maxine Kuczawski, Rosemary Carser, Beverley J Hunt, Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Catherine Nelson-Piercy, Jahnavi Daru

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fiona C SampsonSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. f.c.sampson@sheffield.ac.uk.
Sarah DavisSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Maxine KuczawskiSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Rosemary CarserPPI contributor,Thrombosis UK, PO Box 58, Llanwrda, UK.
Beverley J HuntKings Healthcare Partners, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Steve GoodacreSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Abdullah PandorSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Catherine Nelson-PiercyObstetric Medicine Department, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jahnavi DaruInstitute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Health Technology Assessment Programme NIHR 131021
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingPatient ParticipationPregnancy Complications, CardiovascularVenous ThromboembolismAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPatient SelectionPostpartum PeriodPregnancyQualitative ResearchCommunicationPregnancyQualitative researchThromboprophylaxisTrial participationWomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID40468246
PMCPMC12135286

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.