Skip to main content
Download PDF

Development of the Better Research Interactions for Every Family (BRIEF) intervention to support recruitment for neonatal clinical trials: an intervention mapping guided approach

Trials volume 25, Article number: 610 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Recruitment for neonatal clinical trials can be particularly challenging. Low enrollment rates bias the research population and decrease generalizability of findings. We identified a critical need for an intervention to improve how researchers recruit for neonatal clinical trials. Working within the US neonatal research context, we developed the Better Research Interactions for Every Family (BRIEF) Intervention, which had two overarching goals: to improve the recruitment experience for all parents, focusing on minoritized populations, and to increase participation, focusing on decreasing disparities in research participation.

Methods

We used intervention mapping (IM) to guide all steps of intervention development. IM is a planning framework that provides a systematic process and detailed protocol for step-by-step decision-making for intervention development, implementation, and evaluation.

Results

We performed IM’s six steps. In step 1, we convened two stakeholder groups, a parent panel and an expert panel, who provided guidance through development of all BRIEF components. Through a recent systematic review, empirical data collected by our team, and consultations with the panels, we identified key determinants (barriers and facilitators) of low enrollment rates and research team members as change agents. In step 2, we iteratively refined our list of key factors to include and linked determinants of behavior changes to these performance objectives. In step 3, we chose three theories (social cognitive theory, theory of information processing, and the trans-theoretical model), methods from identified practical applications suitable for the population (research team members) and the context (busy research NICU teams). In step 4, we developed and refined the intervention components, including self-guided pre-work and a single in-person session. In step 5, we identified the Darbepoetin plus slow-release intravenous iron trial as our partner study in which to pilot BRIEF. In step 6, we developed a multi-stage evaluation plan that included five distinct levels of outcomes.

Conclusions

This manuscript shares our rationale and processes for the creation of a research team member-facing intervention aiming to improve recruitment processes for neonatal clinical trials. Our approach can inform those aiming to improve recruitment for neonatal clinical trials and those who may be considering use of IM within similar contexts.

Peer Review reports

Background

Challenges enrolling participants are common across all types of clinical trials [1, 2]. In the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), recruitment challenges are compounded by high clinical acuity, inclusion of a particularly vulnerable population, and short enrollment windows during a time when the parents are likely experiencing high levels of stress [3,4,5].

Low enrollment for neonatal clinical trials is problematic because it is not random: those who enroll differ clinically from those who do not. Sicker infants may be less likely to participate than less sick infants [6]. Furthermore, although the data are limited, those available suggest demographic disparities in neonatal research with lower participation of Black infants [7,8,9,10]. These disparities are particularly concerning because of known worse health outcomes for minoritized racial and ethnic groups in US NICUs [11,12,13,14].

In recruitment for neonatal clinical trials, research team members must identify potentially eligible infants, approach their parents, and carry out all components of consent [15]. Through the processes and interactions that are part of the recruitment for neonatal clinical trials, parents decide whether to enroll their infant. This decision is multifactorial, influenced by factors including the following: barriers and facilitators of participation that affect parents’ conception of reasons for and against enrollment [16], parents’ experience of being approached for research [17], and parents’ perceptions of the trustworthiness of the research and clinical teams [18, 19] which may be informed by their experience of the respectfulness of research teams [20, 21]. Thus, optimal recruitment for neonatal clinical trials requires that research teams use a recruitment process that addresses the many factors that shape parents’ decisions.

We, therefore, identified a critical need to develop an intervention focused on improving the recruitment process for neonatal clinical trials. We had two overarching goals. First is to improve the recruitment experience for all parents, focusing on minoritized populations [22]. Second is to increase participation, focusing on decreasing disparities in research participation.

In this paper, we describe our process for developing the Better Research Interactions for Every Family (BRIEF) Intervention and its evaluation plan, within the US neonatal research context. This paper can inform regulators, funders, and clinical trialists on how to build a novel research team member-facing educational intervention to improve research recruitment practices for NICU research.

Methods

We used intervention mapping (IM) to guide all steps of the development of our intervention. IM [23] is a rigorous technique for integrating theory and empirical findings to develop health interventions. It provides a systematic process and detailed protocol for effective, step-by-step decision-making for intervention development, implementation, and evaluation [24]. IM ensures that the intervention matches the priority population’s social and environmental needs. Several components of an intervention can be bundled to address multiple levels of change. Application of theories is essential to link population needs to behavior change methods to operationalize the methods into practical steps for implementation. Thus, IM allows for the creation of multi-component interventions that may be evaluated for effectiveness of the overall bundle as well as each component. IM consists of six steps: (1) needs assessment, (2) creation of matrices of behavioral determinants and performance objectives, (3) choosing theoretical methods and practical strategies, (4) designing the intervention, (5) creation of an adoption and implementation plan, (6) creation of an evaluation plan.

IM has been used to build interventions to decrease disparities in research participation in other populations [25,26,27]. For example, the Randomized Recruitment Intervention Trial (RECRUIT) was an intervention aimed at increasing the inclusion of minoritized populations within clinical trials conducted in specialty clinics. The RECRUIT intervention was created using IM methods [25] and tested via cluster-randomized design across 50 specialty sites [26]. RECRUIT findings were equivocal, with the primary outcome not significant but a suggestion of improvement in recruitment of people from minoritized populations for 3 out of 4 studied trials [28]. IM was also used for the creation of an intervention for HIV clinical trial participation [27]. To our knowledge, IM has not previously been used in the NICU population.

Results

Step 1: Needs assessment

We started the needs assessment process by creating two relevant stakeholder groups to advise intervention development, literature review, and data collected by our team. One of these groups was our expert panel, which consisted of individuals across the US with expertise in bioethics, neonatal clinical trials, stakeholder engagement, adult education, health disparities, qualitative methods, and intervention development. The other group was our parent panel of 10 former NICU parents from the Pacific Northwest Seattle region; more than half were from minoritized populations and more than half had experience being recruited for neonatal research. Parent panel members were paid for their participation. These two groups provided guidance through all steps of the project’s development.

The needs assessment consisted of a literature review supported by a recent systematic review of barriers and facilitators to participation in pediatric research [16] (see Table 1) and a review of findings from previous work conducted by our team members, including surveys [8, 9] and interviews of parents approached for NICU research [17, 19], interviews [21] and Delphi surveys [29] around issues of respect in research, and interviews with pediatric research coordinators [15, 22].

Table 1 Literature review supporting development of BRIEF intervention
Full size table

We chose to structure the BRIEF intervention to follow our previously developed 4-stage conceptual framework of factors impacting relationship building in the researcher-participant-surrogate recruitment interaction within pediatric research [15, 22]. That framework developed out of interviews with pediatric research team members guided by a model of trust-building within community academic research partnerships [59]. Our prior conceptual work identified the relational level (i.e., interactions between research team members and parents) as central to relationship-building between pediatric research team members and parents of potential participants. Our framework delineated four temporal stages of relationship building: pre-approach (deciding whether, when, and how to approach a family), initial connection (starting the interaction with parents), building connection (ongoing interaction, including discussing the study), and follow-up (closing the interaction, preparing for next steps, and working towards positive longer-term relationships) [14]. For BRIEF, we prioritized considerations of equity (present at all levels of the framework) [15, 22], in order to support increased inclusion of and improved experience for minoritized and marginalized populations. We did this by designing our contributing studies, in particular our interviews of parents approached for neonatal research (#2 in the following paragraph), so that minoritized and marginalized populations were over-sampled to assure their views were included.

We were informed by four recent empirical studies performed by our research teams. These include (1) surveys of parents approached for a single neonatal clinical trial, (2) interviews of parents approached for several neonatal research studies, (3) interviews of adult participants in genomic research, and (4) a Delphi survey process with patients in community clinics. We will briefly describe these four lines of inquiry and their contribution to the development of BRIEF.

First, we were informed by recent surveys of parents who were asked to participate in a neonatal clinical trial [8, 9]. We had conducted surveys at 12 US NICUs with parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and encephaLopathy (HEAL) trial [60] or who were eligible but declined enrollment. In these surveys, most parents, but particularly those who chose not to participate in HEAL, wanted greater involvement of the clinical team when learning about research. Important items included the central role of a positive relationship with members of the research team, altruism as a major motivator for participation, and challenges around the right timing for approaching a family for a neonatal clinical trial.

Second, we recently completed a project interviewing parents approached for neonatal research, including both those who participated in and those who declined participation in neonatal research. Key findings from this work included parents’ desire for greater involvement of the clinical team in learning about research and the essential role of emotions and relationships in enrollment decision-making [17]. Motivations for participation included altruism and a hope for benefit to their infant; reasons against participation included burdens of participation to the family and perceived risk to infants [19].

Third, we were informed by recent interviews with participants in genomics research about respect [21]. Findings revealed domains of respect that illustrate the importance of attending to how researchers demonstrate respect across the entire research process. Specific key findings included connecting with families, showing empathy during interpersonal interactions, and responding to the family’s needs. Additionally, presenting the option to participate or not in a neutral way was seen as a way researchers may illustrate respect.

Finally, we were guided by findings from a modified Delphi survey with patients in community clinics about priorities for feeling respected in research [29]. These asked respondents to identify the most important factors for demonstrating respect in this setting. The highest ranked were as follows: receiving information to make a decision and positive interpersonal interactions, reiterating the importance of improving the recruitment and consent process, including the interpersonal relationships that take place during this process.

The IM framework differentiates between the “personal level” at which an individual performs a particular behavioral outcome and the “environmental level,” the social and physical environment where the individual exists. Applying the IM framework to the current project, the research team members exist at the “environmental level” and serve to impact change through their social interactions and providing a welcoming physical space to parents (see Fig. 1). Parents then are the individuals at the “personal level” making the decision that leads to the behavioral outcome of interest: whether or not they choose to participate in neonatal research. Importantly, our team agreed that the parent recruitment experience was vital and valuable independent of their ultimate enrollment decision. While an increased enrollment rate is an important goal to increase the representativeness of the research population, each family must be free to make the enrollment decision best aligned with their values. Therefore, we determined that we must measure outcomes related to the parental recruitment experience.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Logic model of change: targeting “environmental level” of research team members. For BRIEF, our team decided to focus on the environmental level (e.g., directly impacting behavior of research team members) rather than personal level (e.g., directly impacting behavior of parents)

Full size image

Informed by these data as well as a literature review on the topic, we created a logic model of change for the development of the BRIEF intervention (see Fig. 1). With our expert panel, parent advisory panel, and partner clinical trialists, we set out to determine the appropriate agent of change for our intervention. We identified that the intervention could directly target: (a) parents deciding whether to participate in neonatal research, (b) research team members, or (c) both. We decided to focus the BRIEF intervention on research team members. This choice reflects the importance of the relationship developed between researchers and potential parents approached for consent, including the researchers’ responsibility to improve parents’ experience and address disparities in research participation.

For neonatal clinical trials in the US, there is wide variability by site regarding who approaches families for participation [61]. This may include the following: the physician primary investigator, physician co-investigator, research coordinator, research assistant, and research nurse. These individuals may have anywhere from extensive to no knowledge about clinical medicine, may or may not be part of the infant’s medical team, and may or may not have deep knowledge of the research. To be broadly applicable across sites, we designed BRIEF to be useful for all individuals approaching families for neonatal research regardless of their role, training, and experience.

Step 2: Creation of matrices of behavioral determinants and performance objectives

We drew on the previous qualitative research done with research participants and research staff (as described above) to identify key features of respectful, equitable recruitment interactions. We conceptualized our environmental outcomes within our previously created framework, in which we delineated four stages of relationship building in pediatric clinical research (pre-approach, initial connection, building connection, and follow-up) [14]. The identified key features represent the environmental outcomes we hoped to improve with our intervention.

The integration of determinants from step 1 led to several major findings that align with the constructs of the social cognitive theory (SCT). First, parents wanted to learn about research including participants’ risks, benefits, and research burden through a closer interaction with the research team (behavioral capability and outcome expectations). Second, parents believed that arming themselves with information about research would increase their confidence to make an informed decision (self-efficacy). Third, parents needed to be emotionally ready to enroll in research and valued emotional empathy from the research team (emotional coping responses, expectancies, determinism). Fourth, parents were motivated to participate in research when they understood the benefits for their infants and/or were guided by altruism (behavioral capability and outcome expectations).

SCT proposes that human actions and behaviors are influenced by the dynamic interplay between three groups of determinants: personal, behavioral, and environmental factors [62]. This theory focuses on the interaction between internal personal factors such as attention, memory, and motivation and external factors such as the opportunity for a desired outcome. A key component of SCT is self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief that they are capable of performing a behavior [63]. Behavior change therefore is determined by the interaction and alignment between outcome expectations (e.g., an individual’s belief that their behavior will result in a particular outcome) and self-efficacy expectations (e.g., an individual’s belief that they can produce that outcome). Research team members responsible for obtaining consent for neonatal clinical trials are highly motivated to improve their ability to connect with families and meet them at the stage of the families’ readiness for research but often feel limited in their skills to create a positive environment for parents. We selected SCT because its constructs align with the environmental needs of parents deciding to enroll in neonatal trials, and by addressing the determinants, we will increase the capacity and skills of the research team to create an environment that is conducive to positive research recruitment for parents.

For BRIEF, we selected four SCT determinants of behavior change: behavior capability (knowledge and skills to perform task), self-efficacy, outcome expectation, and subjective norms. These were prioritized based on relevancy to the problem and changeability with the potential intervention. We then began identifying and prioritizing performance objectives through multiple rounds of discussions and meetings with our expert panel and our parent advisory panel. We met with each group separately multiple times over a 9-month period to present our initial list of 16 items and then received feedback both in the group meeting and through email correspondence with individual members. Over this period, the items were iteratively refined to a final set of 10 performance objectives with extensive input from our parent and expert advisory groups. Figure 2 shows the selected outcomes, performance objectives, and determinants.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Logic model of change: selection of environmental determinants, performance objectives, and outcomes

Full size image

We next began linking determinants to performance objectives (see Table 2). For example, performance objective 2 asks the research team member to meet with the bedside nurse before approaching the family and use that interaction with nursing to support the early steps of relationship-building. We identified four determinants to support research team members doing this effectively: demonstrate the ability to identify and engage with the bedside nurse and share information gained with the family (behavioral capability), express confidence in learning about the patient and family situation from nursing and verbalize knowledge gained to family (self-efficacy), expect that nursing may have important insights into how the family would prefer to be approached about research (outcome expectation), and expect that nursing will respond positively to engagement with the research team (subjective norms).

Table 2 Environmental outcome matrix
Full size table

Step 3: Choosing theoretical methods and practical strategies

After identifying SCT-based determinants, the research team moved to step 3 in which we selected theory-informed methods and practical applications through which the determinants may be influenced. We chose methods from three theories: SCT, theory of information processing [64, 65], and the trans-theoretical model [66]. These theories were chosen largely based on our review of prior literature of similar interventions to improve recruitment processes in other settings [25,26,27] as well as input from our expert panel members with experience and expertise in IM and in intervention development.

As the behavioral determinants captured personal as well as environmental factors, we were guided by the construct of SCT to help identify the performance objectives that align under each of the four stages of relationship building.

We chose to inform the development of the BRIEF materials using the information processing theory as the research teams play the role of information receivers (receiving information on how to best present neonatal research to families) and givers (giving information to families in an effective manner). This enabled our team to think about how information from BRIEF would be processed by the research team to help research teams anticipate how research information will be processed by the families. The theory of information processing suggest that individuals do not simply respond to stimuli but process information based on structural features of the incoming information [64, 65]. The act of processing information is impacted by such things as where the information is stored, cognitive processes to transfer stored information, and awareness of how information is processed [67, 68]. We chose this theory to optimize our presentation of critical information as part of the pre-work (e.g., chunking key items into a four step model) how we formatted our synchronous session (e.g., guided discussion to support learning of material), as well as provide opportunities for role play to practice these skills.

The findings from step 1 showed that families have different amounts and aspects of information about research as well as emotional readiness to engage in research. Research teams approaching these families need to be aware of their stage of readiness for research participation and provide information that will meet the needs of families to motivate behavior change. The trans-theoretical model suggests that behavior change is a conscious and intentional process that occurs over six stages: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and termination [66]. Progress through stages occurs through constructs of motivational readiness, processes of change, self-efficacy, and decisional balance [69]. These constructs describe why and how a behavior change occurs and can be utilized to support desired behaviors [70, 71]. From this theory, we were able to create a process whereby we could identify and respond to participants’ varied stages of readiness to change (e.g., from pre-work responses) in order to support the synchronous session.

We then identified practical applications suitable for the population (research team members) and the context (busy NICU research teams). Table 3 shows the methods chosen and relevant practical applications, which in turn supported the components of the intervention. Components to support these were chosen: pre-work including didactics, personal stories from parents, example scenarios, and self-reflection and a single synchronous session including didactics, sharing of personal experiences, and role-play practice scenarios. All components were directly linked to one of the ten specific performance objectives and a location within our conceptual framework.

Table 3 Theoretical methods and practical applications
Full size table

Step 4: Designing the intervention

We developed and refined the intervention components, including self-guided pre-work and a single in-person synchronous session. Educational videos were developed in collaboration with the Seattle Children’s Marketing and Communications team. Videos included NICU parents and research coordinators sharing their experiences and perspectives and scripted skits depicting hypothetical research recruitment approaches between research coordinators and NICU parents. The pre-work also included self-reflection questions to increase engagement and prepare learners for the in-person session. Thinkific, a software platform for the creation and delivery of online courses [72], was used to develop the pre-work where participants would engage with the intervention materials by learning about the performance objectives, viewing educational videos, and answering a series of questions inquiring about their experience with recruitment and the performance objectives. Because the target audience includes anyone on a research team that would recruit participants (i.e., investigators and coordinators), we aimed to use a platform for the pre-work that would maximize accessibility (e.g., allow for access at any time and from any location). The online pre-work platform was completed within three weeks prior to the in-person session.

Each research team member participated in a single 2-h group in-person session. This format was selected to maximize the efficacy of the role-play exercise, optimize engagement, and support team building and was felt to be feasible with a single-site neonatal clinical trial. The intervention occurred in a small group format (target 4 or 6 participants per session) to enable 2 or 3 partner break-out groups as well as ample opportunity for discussion in the larger group. Sessions occurred in a conference room at the medical center with audiovisual capabilities. Components were created to be easily adaptable to a remote synchronous setting (e.g., videoconferencing) which would likely be needed for expansion to other settings. Our team developed four role-play scenarios (two scenarios, each with two distinct characters being approached for a different neonatal research study). Each of the four scenarios was created to facilitate practice with a sub-set of the performance objectives (see Fig. S1). They were designed around two neonatal clinical trials to allow the practice to apply across different trials.

The synchronous session was divided into four sections: introduction, an overview of the conceptual model, and didactics; team member discussion of reflection questions from pre-work; role plays; and closing discussion with a feedback survey. The intervention was designed to be piloted in the NICU, but applicable to multiple recruitment settings, and to achieve two goals: (1) improve the recruitment experience for families and (2) increase enrollment rates (and decrease disparities in enrollment). All components were created iteratively in collaboration with our parent panel and expert panel members. The synchronous session was led by the project lead and lead author of the current manuscript.

Improving the research experience for parents from marginalized and minoritized populations was a central goal of this project. Because of this, as we have described, we prioritized information from these groups in the identification of our performance objectives and the development of our content. However, we must recognize that parents from marginalized and minoritized populations are highly heterogenous with variability in whether and which additional challenges they face. Because of this, we did not recommend researchers change their approach solely based on parental demographics. Our team and our parent and expert advisors felt such broad generalizations would be inappropriate.

Step 5: Creation of an adoption and implementation plan

Next, we identified a partner neonatal clinical trial to pilot the BRIEF intervention. For partnership, we identified the single site Darbepoetin plus slow-release intravenous iron (DIVI) [73]. DIVI is a phase II trial to demonstrate Darbepoetin’s feasibility, safety, and potential benefit with different iron formulations and its impact on transfusion requirements and on neurodevelopmental outcomes for infants born before 32 weeks gestational age. Logistical and methodological advantages included broad inclusion criteria, the need for early enrollment (within the first three days of life), and a team highly committed to supporting this pilot-phase collaboration, which was essential to get feedback to be used for the creation of a version to be used across a multi-site clinical trial.

In future iterations, we will test the BRIEF intervention at multiple sites and for multiple neonatal clinical trials. To maximize the applicability across settings, we will endeavor to include studies with variety across key components of neonatal research, including the following: inclusion criteria, enrollment window (including whether prenatal consent is possible), intervention characteristics, and follow-up duration. When this is done, we will need to create an adoption and implementation plan specific to the settings chosen.

Step 6: Creation of an evaluation plan

To evaluate the intervention, we developed a multi-stage evaluation plan that included five distinct levels of outcomes.

Data at the infant level (P1) included the dichotomous outcome of whether the infant ultimately participated in the DIVI study. We also designed a targeted data extraction for all infants eligible for the DIVI study at birth in order to collect demographic and medical information to evaluate for any differences between DIVI participants and DIVI non-participants. Selected demographics include race, ethnicity, insurance status, gestational age, birthweight, and sex. Selected medical information include key prenatal factors (maternal prenatal antibiotics, prenatal steroids), key factors at birth (Apgar scores, resuscitation needed), and disposition to discharge.

Two outcomes were specific to the parent experience level. We invited all parents who were approached by the DIVI team for a recruitment discussion to participate in a one-time REDCap-based parent survey (P2). The rationale of this outcome was to evaluate parents’ experience of being recruited to participate in the DIVI study with a focus on areas addressed by the BRIEF intervention, to gather demographic information, and to inquire about parents’ willingness to participate in a follow-up interview. As part of the IM process, the survey development was centered on assessing parental experience around each of the ten performance objectives present in the BRIEF intervention through an iterative process including input from our parent advisory panel and expert panel as well as cognitive interviews with NICU parents to assess interpretation of our questions. We developed two novel 5-point Likert scale questions for each performance objective (total 20 questions), in addition to novel questions about related higher level constructs (e.g., respect, trustworthiness, equity), a validated scale for trust in medical researchers [74], and respondent demographics.

Parents who participated in our survey were invited to participate in in-depth parent interviews (P3). The rationale of this outcome was to evaluate the parent experience of being recruited to participate in the DIVI study with a focus on areas addressed by the BRIEF intervention and to establish qualitative data on the parent experience. The interview guide was also structured around the ten performance objectives and related constructs with a similar process as for the survey questions described above.

The next outcome level focused on the interaction between parents and research team members. For a subset of parents approached, we gathered data from the parent-research team member recruitment discussions (P4). The data included two components: audio-recordings of the recruitment discussions between the DIVI team members and the parents and research team member self-assessment of the sample sub-set of DIVI recruitment discussions using the BRIEF Assessment Tool (Fig. S2), which was created as part of the IM process. The BRIEF Assessment Tool included 10 Likert scale questions, each linked to a specific performance objective. The rationale for these outcomes was twofold: first was to compare DIVI team members’ self-assessment of their achievement of each performance objective before and after BRIEF intervention training, and second was to compare DIVI team members’ self-assessment with external assessment of audio-recorded recruitment discussions using the same tool.

Our final outcomes were specific to the research team member level (P5). These included a multi-phase data collection process consisting of surveys after the pre-work, surveys after the synchronous session, and interviews at the project’s close. The rationale of these outcomes was to evaluate the DIVI team members’ experience of the BRIEF intervention so we may refine it for future iterations.

As of the writing of the current manuscript, data collection for all five levels of outcomes for this single-center pilot assessment of BRIEF within the partner DIVI trial has been completed. Analysis is ongoing, and our findings are currently being drafted, after which they will be submitted as manuscripts to be considered within peer review medical journals.

Discussion

This paper describes the planning process of the BRIEF intervention using IM. This rigorous process allowed us to develop an intervention based on the best available evidence and to monitor outcomes as they map on to each of our performance objectives.

While there is interest in improving recruitment for neonatal trials, we were unable to identify published accounts of rigorously developed and/or evaluated interventions with this goal. Creating, evaluating, and implementing such interventions is critical to moving the field forward. This project represents the first recruitment intervention for neonatal clinical trials utilizing IM.

Our decision to target research team members was a strength of BRIEF for several reasons. First, there is a strong ethical justification for researchers to take action to improve research diversity and inclusion. Second, these individuals are highly motivated and reachable, given other training they must do, such as onboarding for a neonatal clinical trial. Third, there is currently huge variability in role, training, experience, and approach to recruitment for these studies, suggesting potential for improvement with standardization.

Our creation and use of multi-level outcomes will determine which performance objectives were most effective in order to refine the intervention for future use. After completing the BRIEF intervention within DIVI, we hope to refine the intervention based on our pilot results and test it within a multi-site neonatal clinical trial.

We also hope to expand the BRIEF intervention into other contexts. Much of the conceptual and theoretical framework may be used within other settings, but we will assess for context-specific additional performance objectives and any additions that may be needed to our conceptual model. Potential disciplines for expansion of BRIEF include other settings where decisions need to be made quickly in a high-stress situation, such as emergency medicine and both adult and pediatric intensive care. BRIEF may also have value in other settings where trustworthiness and relationship building are especially important, such as within genomics and pain research.

Limitations

While the development of the intervention prioritized empirical and conceptual work centering marginalized and minoritized populations, the intervention itself was created to broadly support all of those approached for neonatal research. Future work may consider if specific modifications to recruitment processes should be considered to best support certain populations. This project was developed within the context of US neonatal research. Applicability outside the US may vary, due to differences in recruitment approaches for neonatal research as well as differences in the social construction of marginalization in other contexts.

Conclusion

The BRIEF intervention is a rigorously developed research team member-facing intervention aiming to improve recruitment processes for neonatal clinical trials. In describing our rationale and process for the creation of BRIEF using IM, we offer a guide for those considering using this approach to improve recruitment for neonatal clinical trials and other research settings as well as for those who may be considering use of IM in other contexts.

Availability of data and materials

Deidentified data can be available on written request to Dr. Weiss. Depending on the nature of request, it may require approval by the UW IRB.

Abbreviations

BRIEF:

Better Research Interactions for Every Family

DIVI:

Darbepoetin plus slow-release intravenous iron

HEAL:

HIgh-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and encephaLopathy

IM:

Intervention mapping

NICU:

Neonatal intensive care unit

RECRUIT:

Randomized Recruitment Intervention Trial

SCT:

Social cognitive theory

References

  1. Williams RJ, Tse T, DiPiazza K, Zarin DA. Terminated trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov Results database: evaluation of availability of primary outcome data and reasons for termination. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0127242. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127242.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Walters SJ, dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby IB, Bortolami O, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e015276. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Nordheim T, Anderzén-Carlsson A, Nakstad B. A qualitative study of the experiences of norwegian parents of very low birthweight infants enrolled in a randomized nutritional trial. J Pediatr Nurs. 2018;43:e66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2018.07.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Al Maghaireh DF, Abdullah KL, Chan CM, Piaw CY, Al Kawafha MM. Systematic review of qualitative studies exploring parental experiences in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(19–20):2745–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rich WD, Auten KJ, Gantz MG, et al. Antenatal consent in the SUPPORT trial: challenges, costs, and representative enrollment. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):e215–21. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-3353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rich W, Finer NN, Gantz MG, et al. Enrollment of extremely low birth weight infants in a clinical research study may not be representative. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):480–4. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Foglia EE, Nolen TL, DeMauro SB, et al. Short-term outcomes of infants enrolled in randomized clinical trials vs those eligible but not enrolled. JAMA. 2015;313(23):2377–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.5734.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Weiss EM, Guttmann KF, Olszewski AE, et al. Parental enrollment decision-making for a neonatal clinical trial. J Pediatr. 2021;12(239):143–149.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.08.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Weiss EM, Olszewski AE, Guttmann KF, et al. Parental factors associated with the decision to participate in a neonatal clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(1):e2032106. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lyle ANJ, Shaikh H, Oslin E, Gray MM, Weiss EM. Race and ethnicity of infants enrolled in neonatal clinical trials: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(12):e2348882. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.48882.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Anderson JG, Rogers EE, Baer RJ, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in preterm infant mortality and severe morbidity: a population-based study. Neonatology. 2018;113(1):44–54. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wallace ME, Mendola P, Kim SS, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in preterm perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(3):306.e1–306.e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.1026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Beck AF, Edwards EM, Horbar JD, Howell EA, McCormick MC, Pursley DM. The color of health: how racism, segregation, and inequality affect the health and well-being of preterm infants and their families. Pediatr Res. 2020;87(2):227–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-019-0513-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Janevic T, Zeitlin J, Auger N, et al. Association of race/ethnicity with very preterm neonatal morbidities. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(11):1061–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2029.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kraft SA, Porter KM, Sullivan TR, et al. Relationship building in pediatric research recruitment: Insights from qualitative interviews with research staff. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022;6(1):e138. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.469.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Nathe JM, Oskoui TT, Weiss EM. Parental views of facilitators and barriers to research participation: systematic review. Pediatrics. 2023;151(1). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-058067.

  17. Weiss EM, Porter KM, Oslin E, et al. Experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research: insights from parent interviews. J Perinatol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-023-01790-6.

  18. Kraft SA, Cho MK, Gillespie K, et al. Beyond consent: building trusting relationships with diverse populations in precision medicine research. Am J Bioeth. 2018;18(4):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1431322.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Weiss EM, Donohue PK, Wootton SH, et al. Motivations for and against participation in neonatal research: insights from interviews of diverse parents approached for neonatal research in the US. J Pediatr. 2024:113923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.113923.

  20. Griffith DM, Jaeger EC, Bergner EM, Stallings S, Wilkins CH. Determinants of trustworthiness to conduct medical research: findings from focus groups conducted with racially and ethnically diverse adults. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(10):2969–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05868-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kraft SA, Rothwell E, Shah SK, et al. Demonstrating ‘respect for persons’ in clinical research: findings from qualitative interviews with diverse genomics research participants. J Med Ethics. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weiss EM, Porter KM, Sullivan TR, et al. Equity concerns across pediatric research recruitment: an analysis of research staff interviews. Acad Pediatr. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2023.06.032.

  23. Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G. Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory- and evidence-based health education programs. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25(5):545–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819802500502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kok G, Schaalma H, Ruiter RA, van Empelen P, Brug J. Intervention mapping: protocol for applying health psychology theory to prevention programmes. J Health Psychol. 2004;9(1):85–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105304038379.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Amorrortu RP, Arevalo M, Vernon SW, et al. Recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities to clinical trials conducted within specialty clinics: an intervention mapping approach. Trials. 2018;19(1):115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2507-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tilley BC, Mainous AG, Smith DW, et al. Design of a cluster-randomized minority recruitment trial: RECRUIT. Clin Trials. 2017;14(3):286–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774517690146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Corbie-Smith G, Odeneye E, Banks B, Shandor Miles M, Roman IM. Development of a multilevel intervention to increase HIV clinical trial participation among rural minorities. Health Educ Behav. 2013;40(3):274–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198112452124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tilley BC, Mainous AG, Amorrortu RP, et al. Using increased trust in medical researchers to increase minority recruitment: the RECRUIT cluster randomized clinical trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021;109:106519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106519.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kraft SA, Duenas DM, Shah SK. Patient priorities for fulfilling the principle of respect in research: findings from a modified Delphi study. BMC Med Ethics. 2023;24(1):73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00954-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Mazzocco MMM, Myers GF, Harum KH, Reiss AL. Children’s participation in genetic prevalence research: influences on enrollment and reports of parent satisfaction. J App Soc Psych. 1999;29(11):2308–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Langley JM, Halperin SA, Mills EL, Eastwood B. Parental willingness to enter a child in a controlled vaccine trial. Clin Invest Med. 1998;21(1):12–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Greenberg RG, Gamel B, Bloom D, et al. Parents’ perceived obstacles to pediatric clinical trial participation: findings from the clinical trials transformation initiative. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018;9:33–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Paquette E, Shukla A, Davidson J, Rychlik K, Davis M. Burden or opportunity? Parent experiences when approached for research in a pediatric intensive care unit. Ethics Hum Res. 2019;41(3):2–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500014.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Morain SR, Joffe S, Largent EA. When is it ethical for physician-investigators to seek consent from their own patients? Am J Bioeth. 2019;19(4):11–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1572811.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wulff A, Marschollek M. Learning healthcare systems in pediatrics: cross-institutional and data-driven decision-support for intensive care environments (CADDIE). Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018;251:109–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Turner M, Chur-Hansen A, Winefield H. The neonatal nurses’ view of their role in emotional support of parents and its complexities. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(21–22):3156–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mok E, Leung SF. Nurses as providers of support for mothers of premature infants. J Clin Nurs. 2006;15(6):726–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01359.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Thomas M, Menon K. Consenting to pediatric critical care research: understanding the perspective of parents. Dynamics. 2013;24(3):18–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. DeMauro SB, Cairnie J, D’Ilario J, Kirpalani H, Schmidt B. Honesty, trust, and respect during consent discussions in neonatal clinical trials. Pediatrics. 2014;134(1):e1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zupancic JA, Gillie P, Streiner DL, Watts JL, Schmidt B. Determinants of parental authorization for involvement of newborn infants in clinical trials. Pediatrics. 1997;99(1):e6–e6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S. Participation of children in clinical research: factors that influence a parent’s decision to consent. Anesthesiology. 2003;99(4):819–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200310000-00012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Woolfall K, Frith L, Gamble C, Young B. How experience makes a difference: practitioners’ views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Siewert M, Malviya S. Factors that influence parents’ decisions to consent to their child’s participation in clinical anesthesia research. Anesth Analg. 1998;86(1):50–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-199801000-00010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Menon K, Ward RE, Gaboury I, et al. Factors affecting consent in pediatric critical care research. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(1):153–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-011-2412-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Korotchikova I, Boylan GB, Dempsey EM, Ryan CA. Presence of both parents during consent process in non-therapeutic neonatal research increases positive response. Acta Paediatr. 2010;99(10):1484–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mason SA, Allmark PJ, Group ES. Obtaining informed consent to neonatal randomised controlled trials: interviews with parents and clinicians in the Euricon study. Lancet. 2000;356(9247):2045–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Morgan SE, Occa A, Potter J, Mouton A, Peter ME. “You need to be a good listener”: recruiters’ use of relational communication behaviors to enhance clinical trial and research study accrual. J Health Commun. 2017;22(2):95–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1256356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Porter KM, Weiss EM, Kraft SA. Promoting disclosure and understanding in informed consent: optimizing the impact of the common rule “key information” requirement. Am J Bioeth. 2021;21(5):70–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2021.1906996.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. D’Amanda CS, Peay HL, Wheeler AC, Turbitt E, Biesecker BB. Fragile X syndrome clinical trials: exploring parental decision-making. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2019;63(8):926–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Eiser C, Davies H, Jenney M, Glaser A. Mothers’ attitudes to the randomized controlled trial (RCT): the case of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in children. Child Care Health Dev. 2005;31(5):517–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00538.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Dahan S, Jung C, Dassieu G, Durrmeyer X, Caeymaex L. Trust and consent: a prospective study on parents' perspective during a neonatal trial. J Med Ethics. 2021;47(10):678–83. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105597.

  52. Ward F. Chaos, vulnerability and control: parental beliefs about neonatal clinical trials. J Perinatol. 2009;29(2):156–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Dickert NW, Bernard AM, Brabson JM, et al. Partnering with patients to bridge gaps in consent for acute care research. Am J Bioeth. 2020;20(5):7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1745931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Guttmann KF, Wu YW, Juul SE, Weiss EM. Consent related challenges for neonatal clinical trials. Am J Bioeth. 2020;20(5):38–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1745940.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Miller RL, Comstock RD, Pierpoint L, Leonard J, Bajaj L, Mistry RD. Facilitators and barriers for parental consent to pediatric emergency research. Pediatr Res. 2022;91(5):1156–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-021-01600-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bartlett A, Kolb SJ, Kingsley A, et al. Recruitment & retention program for the NeuroNEXT SMA Biomarker Study: Super Babies for SMA! Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018;11:113–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2018.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Shen S, Doyle-Thomas KAR, Beesley L, et al. How and why should we engage parents as co-researchers in health research? A scoping review of current practices. Health Expect. 2017;20(4):543–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tamburro R, Pawluszka A, Amey D, et al. The Family Network Collaborative: engaging families in pediatric critical care research. Pediatr Res. 2023;93(3):453–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-022-02048-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Dave G, Frerichs L, Jones J, et al. Conceptualizing trust in community-academic research partnerships using concept mapping approach: a multi-CTSA study. Eval Program Plann. 2018;66:70–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.10.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Juul SE, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, et al. High-dose erythropoietin for asphyxia and encephalopathy (HEAL): a randomized controlled trial - background, aims, and study protocol. Neonatology. 2018;113(4):331–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000486820.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Guttmann KF, Li S, Wu YW, et al. Factors that impact hospital-specific enrollment rates for a neonatal clinical trial: an analysis of the HEAL study. Ethics Hum Res. 2023;45(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500154.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Torre D, Durning SJ. Social cognitive theory: thinking and learning in social settings In: Cleland J, Durning SJ, eds. Researching Medical Education. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2015:105–116:chap 10.

  63. Schunk DH, Usher EL. Social cognitive theory and motivation. In: Ryan R, editor. The Oxford handbook of human motivation. Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 13–27.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. Miller GA. The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 1956;63(2):81–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Atkinson RC, Shiffrin RM. Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes11This research was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Grant No. NGR-05-020-036. The authors are indebted to W. K. Estes and G. H. Bower who provided many valuable suggestions and comments at various stages of the work. Special credit is due J. W. Brelsford who was instrumental in carrying out the research discussed in Section IV and whose overall contributions are too numerous to report in detail. We should also like to thank those co-workers who carried out a number of the experiments discussed in the latter half of the paper; rather than list them here, each will be acknowledged at the appropriate place. In: Spence KW, Spence JT, eds. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Academic Press; 1968:89–195.

  66. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):38–48. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Krivec J, Guid M. The influence of context on information processing. Cogn Process. 2020;21(2):167–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-020-00958-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Baddeley AD, Hitch G. Working memory. In: Bower GH, editor. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Academic Press; 1974. p. 47–89.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983;51(3):390–5. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.51.3.390.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Han H, Pettee Gabriel K, Kohl HW. Application of the transtheoretical model to sedentary behaviors and its association with physical activity status. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0176330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176330.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Han H, Gabriel KP, Kohl HW. Evaluations of validity and reliability of a transtheoretical model for sedentary behavior among college students. Am J Health Behav. 2015;39(5):601–9. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.39.5.2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Thinkific. Accessed 7 Mar 2024. https://www.thinkific.com/.

  73. Juul S. Darbe plus IV iron to decrease transfusions while maintaining iron sufficiency in preterm infants (DIVI). Accessed 16 Jan 2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05340465.

  74. Hall MA, Camacho F, Lawlor JS, Depuy V, Sugarman J, Weinfurt K. Measuring trust in medical researchers. Med Care. 2006;44(11):1048–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000228023.37087.cb.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank members of Dr. Weiss’s NICU parent panel for their important contributions in the design of our interview guide and interpretation of our interview findings. We thank members of Dr. Weiss’s K23 expert panel for their conceptual and logistical support. We thank the Seattle Children’s Marketing and Communications department for assisting with video creation for our intervention.

We thank members of the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care for giving feedback at conferences during various points in the development of this project.

We thank research team members for support of development of the BRIEF intervention:

Benjamin S. Wilfond, MD, Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Seattle Children’s Research Institute

Andrea Kelsh, Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Seattle Children’s Research Institute

Neal Dickert, MD, PhD, Emory University School of Medicine

None of the above non-author contributors were provided monetary compensation. We have obtained written permission to include their names in the “Acknowledgements” section of this manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by National Institutes of Health through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD103872, supporting Elliott Weiss) and through the National Human Genome Research Institute (K01HG010361, supporting Stephanie Kraft). The NIH had no role in the design and conduct of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, M/S FA.2.113 Neonatology, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA

    Elliott Mark Weiss, Megan M. Gray, Devan M. Duenas & Ellie Oslin

  2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Elliott Mark Weiss

  3. Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Linda K. Ko

  4. Department of Bioethics and Decision Sciences, Geisinger College of Health Sciences, Danville, PA, USA

    Stephanie A. Kraft

Authors
  1. Elliott Mark Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan M. Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda K. Ko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Devan M. Duenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ellie Oslin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephanie A. Kraft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Weiss conceptualized the project, designed the project, led all steps of intervention development, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. Dr. Gray and Dr. Ko substantially contributed to the design of the project, supported the intervention development, and reviewed and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. Mr. Duenas and Ms. Oslin supported the intervention development and reviewed and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. Prof. Kraft conceptualized the project, designed the project, and reviewed and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elliott Mark Weiss.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All components of BRIEF within the DIVI trial were approved by the University of Washington IRB (STUDY00015075). Consent was obtained for parent participation in surveys, interviews, and recorded consent discussion and research team member participation in surveys, interviews, and recorded consent discussions.

Consent for publication

Dr. Weiss had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All results presented in the manuscript are original and have not been published previously. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weiss, E.M., Gray, M.M., Ko, L.K. et al. Development of the Better Research Interactions for Every Family (BRIEF) intervention to support recruitment for neonatal clinical trials: an intervention mapping guided approach. Trials 25, 610 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08446-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08446-6

Keywords

Trials

ISSN: 1745-6215