Quality of informed consent for research participation obtained during labor versus mid-pregnancy in Uganda

Obtaining high-quality informed consent for research is an ethical imperative and crucial for protecting participants’ rights. For vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, this concern becomes even more paramount. We evaluated the quality of informed consent for research participation obtained at different times during pregnancy in Uganda. This study was a nested prospective observational birth cohort study within the Placentas, Antibodies, and Child Outcomes (PACO) birth cohort. A total of 216 pregnant women were enrolled either during the second trimester (gestational weeks 16–24) or during labor at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital and Kabwohe Clinical Research Centre in Uganda. The primary outcomes were objective (Quality of Informed Consent [QuIC]-A) and subjective (QuIC-B) informed consent scores. At the time of consent, we also assessed anxiety (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), pain (Wong-Baker Faces scale), and trust in medical researchers (Medical Researcher Trust scale, see Appendices for tools). We performed multivariable linear regression analyses to examine the association between consent timing and objective and subjective quality of informed consent for research participation. Of 216 participants, 134 (62%) were enrolled during mid-pregnancy and 82 (38%) during early active labor. Consent obtained during labor was associated with significantly lower objective (mean difference − 12.9; 95% CI -18.3 to -7.4; p < 0.001) and subjective (mean difference − 10.1; 95% CI -18.3 to -2.0; p = 0.02) informed consent scores compared to consent obtained mid-pregnancy. Higher anxiety score was significantly associated with lower objective ( p = 0.009) and subjective ( p = 0.001) consent scores. Both pain and trust in medical researchers were not associated with subjective or objective consent quality. The quality of informed consent obtained during labor was significantly lower than consent obtained during mid-pregnancy, highlighting the need for strategies to optimize informed consent timing and processes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Ethics
Published
2026-07-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01549-6
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Quality of informed consent for research participation obtained during labor versus mid-pregnancy in Uganda

Bizu Gelaye, Lisa M. Bebell, Anacret Byamukama, Mehreen Zaigham et al.
BMC Medical Ethics
Ethics in Clinical Research
article

Quality of informed consent for research participation obtained during labor versus mid-pregnancy in Uganda

Bizu Gelaye, Lisa M. Bebell, Anacret Byamukama, Mehreen Zaigham, Raymond Bernard Kihumuro, Francis Bajunirwe, Adeline A. Boatin, Stephen Asiimwe, Jessica E. Haberer, Joseph Ngonzi, Cindy Zhang, Edna Tindimwebwa
article en

Abstract

Obtaining high-quality informed consent for research is an ethical imperative and crucial for protecting participants’ rights. For vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, this concern becomes even more paramount. We evaluated the quality of informed consent for research participation obtained at different times during pregnancy in Uganda. This study was a nested prospective observational birth cohort study within the Placentas, Antibodies, and Child Outcomes (PACO) birth cohort. A total of 216 pregnant women were enrolled either during the second trimester (gestational weeks 16–24) or during labor at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital and Kabwohe Clinical Research Centre in Uganda. The primary outcomes were objective (Quality of Informed Consent [QuIC]-A) and subjective (QuIC-B) informed consent scores. At the time of consent, we also assessed anxiety (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), pain (Wong-Baker Faces scale), and trust in medical researchers (Medical Researcher Trust scale, see Appendices for tools). We performed multivariable linear regression analyses to examine the association between consent timing and objective and subjective quality of informed consent for research participation. Of 216 participants, 134 (62%) were enrolled during mid-pregnancy and 82 (38%) during early active labor. Consent obtained during labor was associated with significantly lower objective (mean difference − 12.9; 95% CI -18.3 to -7.4; p < 0.001) and subjective (mean difference − 10.1; 95% CI -18.3 to -2.0; p = 0.02) informed consent scores compared to consent obtained mid-pregnancy. Higher anxiety score was significantly associated with lower objective ( p = 0.009) and subjective ( p = 0.001) consent scores. Both pain and trust in medical researchers were not associated with subjective or objective consent quality. The quality of informed consent obtained during labor was significantly lower than consent obtained during mid-pregnancy, highlighting the need for strategies to optimize informed consent timing and processes.

BMC Medical Ethics
Tufts University (US), Harvard University (US), Mbarara University of Science and Technology (UG), Lund University (SE), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Center for Global Health (US), Skåne University Hospital (SE), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (US), Harvard Global Health Institute (US)
Center for Global Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Ethics in Clinical Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.