Background: More effective recruitment strategies like alternative approaches to consent are needed to facilitate adequately powered trials. WithHolding Enteral feeds Around Transfusion (WHEAT) was a multicentre, randomised, pilot trial that compared withholding and continuing feeds around transfusion. The primary clinical outcome was necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). The trial used simplified opt-out consent with concise parent information and no consent form.
Objective: To explore the views and experiences of parents and health professionals on the acceptability and feasibility of opt-out consent in randomised comparative effectiveness trials.
Methods: A qualitative, descriptive interview-based study nested within a randomised trial. Semi-structured interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
Setting: Eleven neonatal units in England.
Participants: Eleven parents and ten health professionals with experience of simplified consent.
Results: Five themes emerged: ‘Opt-out consent operationalised as verbal opt-in consent’, ‘Opt-out consent normalises participation while preserving parental choice’, ‘Opt-out consent as an ongoing process of informed choice’, ‘Consent without a consent form’ and ‘Choosing to opt out of a comparative effectiveness trial’, with two subthemes: ‘Wanting “normal care”’ and ‘A belief that feeding is better’.
Conclusions: Introducing a novel form of consent proved challenging in practice. The principle of simplified, opt-out approach to consent was generally considered feasible and acceptable by health professionals for a neonatal comparative effectiveness trial. The priority for parents was having the right to decide about trial participation, and they did not see opt-out consent as undermining this. Describing a study as ‘opt-out’ can help to normalise participation and emphasise that parents can withdraw consent.