BackgroundPerinatal and paediatric autopsy rates are at historically low levels with declining uptake due to dislike of the invasiveness of the procedure, and religious objections particularly amongst Muslim and Jewish parents. Less invasive methods of autopsy including imaging with and without tissue sampling have been shown to be feasible alternatives. We sought to investigate attitudes including religious permissibility and potential uptake amongst members of the Muslim and Jewish communities in the United Kingdom.MethodsSemi-structured interviews with religious and faith-based authorities (n = 16) and bereaved parents from the Jewish community (n = 3) as well as 10 focus groups with community members (60 Muslim participants and 16 Jewish participants) were conducted. Data were analysed using thematic analysis to identify key themes.FindingsMuslim and Jewish religious and faith-based authorities agreed that non-invasive autopsy with imaging was religiously permissible because it did not require incisions or interference with the body. A minimally invasive approach was less acceptable as it still required incisions to the body, although in those circumstances where it was required by law it was more acceptable than a full autopsy. During focus group discussions with community members, the majority of participants indicated they would potentially consent to a non-invasive autopsy if the body could be returned for burial within 24 hours, or if a family had experienced multiple fetal/pregnancy losses and the information gained might be useful in future pregnancies. Minimally invasive autopsy was less acceptable but around half of participants might consent if a non-invasive autopsy was not suitable, with the exception of the Jewish Haredi community who unanimously stated they would decline this alternative.ConclusionsOur research suggests less invasive autopsy offers a viable alternative to many Muslim and Jewish parents in the UK who currently decline a full autopsy. The findings may be of importance to other countries with significant Muslim and/or Jewish communities as well as to other religious communities where concerns around autopsy exist. Awareness-raising amongst religious leaders and community members will be important if these methods become routinely available.

Objective To investigate whether less invasive methods of autopsy would be acceptable to bereaved parents and likely to increase uptake. Design Mixed methods study. Setting Bereaved parents recruited prospectively across seven hospitals in England and retrospectively through four parent support organisations. Sample Eight hundred and fifty‐nine surveys and 20 interviews with bereaved parents. Methods Cross‐sectional survey and qualitative semi‐structured telephone interviews. Main outcome measures Likely uptake, preferences, factors impacting decision‐making, views on different autopsy methods. Results Overall, 90.5% of participants indicated that they would consent to some form of less invasive autopsy [either minimally invasive autopsy ( MIA ), non‐invasive autopsy ( NIA ) or both]; 53.8% would consent to standard autopsy, 74.3% to MIA and 77.3% to NIA . Regarding parental preferences, 45.5% preferred MIA , 30.8% preferred NIA and 14.3% preferred standard autopsy. Participants who indicated they would decline standard autopsy but would consent to a less invasive option were significantly more likely to have a lower educational level (odds ratio 0.49; 95% CI 0.35–0.70; P = 0.000062). Qualitative findings suggest that parents value NIA because of the lack of any incision and MIA is considered a good compromise as it enables tissue sampling while easing the parental burden associated with consenting to standard autopsy. Conclusion Less invasive methods of autopsy are acceptable alternatives for bereaved parents, and if offered, are likely to increase uptake and improve parental experience. Further health economic, validation and implementation studies are now required to assess the viability of offering these in routine widespread clinical care. Tweetable abstract Mixed methods UK study finds less invasive methods of autopsy are acceptable alternatives for bereaved parents, and if offered, are likely to increase uptake and improve parental experience.

BackgroundLess invasive perinatal and paediatric autopsy methods, such as imaging alongside targeted endoscopy and organ biopsy, may address declining consent rates for traditional autopsy, but their acceptability and accuracy are not known.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to provide empirical data on the acceptability and likely uptake for different types of autopsy among key stakeholders (study 1); and to analyse existing autopsy data sources to provide estimates of the potential efficacy of less invasive autopsy (LIA) and its projected utility in clinical practice (study 2).Review methodsStudy 1: this was a mixed-methods study. Parents were involved in research design and interpretation of findings. Substudy 1: a cross-sectional survey of 859 parents who had experienced miscarriage, termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly, stillbirth, infant or child death, and interviews with 20 responders. Substudy 2: interviews with 25 health professionals and four coroners. Substudy 3: interviews with 16 religious leaders and eight focus groups, with 76 members of the Muslim and Jewish community. Study 2: a retrospective analysis of national data in addition to detailed information from an existing in-house autopsy database of > 5000 clinical cases that had undergone standard autopsy to determine the proportion of cases by clinical indication group for which tissue sampling of specific internal organs significantly contributed to the diagnosis.ResultsSubstudy 1: 91% of participants indicated that they would consent to some form of LIA, 54% would consent to standard autopsy, 74% to minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) and 77% to non-invasive autopsy (NIA). Substudy 2: participants viewed LIA as a positive development, but had concerns around the limitations of the technology and de-skilling the workforce. Cost implications, skills and training requirements were identified as implementation challenges. Substudy 3: religious leaders agreed that NIA was religiously permissible, but MIA was considered less acceptable. Community members indicated that they might consent to NIA if the body could be returned for burial within 24 hours. Study 2: in 5–10% of cases of sudden unexplained death in childhood and sudden unexplained death in infants, the final cause of death is determined by routine histological sampling of macroscopically normal organs, predominantly the heart and lungs, and in this group routine histological sampling therefore remains an important aspect of investigation. In contrast, routine histological examination of macroscopically normal organs rarely (< 0.5%) provides the cause of death in fetal cases, making LIA and NIA approaches potentially highly applicable.LimitationsA key limitation of the empirical research is that it is hypothetical. Further research is required to determine actual uptake. Furthermore, because of the retrospective nature of the autopsy data set, findings regarding the likely contribution of organ sampling to final diagnosis are based on extrapolation of findings from historical autopsies, and prospective data collection is required to validate the conclusions.ConclusionsLIA is viable and acceptable (except for unexplained deaths), and likely to increase uptake. Further health economic, performance and implementation studies are required to determine the optimal service configuration required to offer this as routine clinical care.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The Boost Brittle Bones Before Birth (BOOSTB4) clinical trial is investigating the safety and efficacy of transplanting fetal derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) prenatally and/or in early postnatal life to treat severe Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI). This study aimed to explore stakeholder views to understand perceived benefits or concerns, identify ethical issues and establish protocols for support and counselling. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with three groups; 1. Adults affected with OI, with and without children, and parents of children affected with OI; 2. Health professionals who work with patients with OI; 3. Patient advocates from relevant patient support groups. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Interviews with 56 participants revealed generally positive views towards using fetal MSC transplantation to treat OI. Early treatment was considered advantageous for preventing fractures and reducing severity and could bring psychological benefits for parents. Common concerns were procedure safety, short/long-term side effects and whether transplantation would be effective. Difficulties inherent in decision-making were frequently discussed, as treatment efficacy is unknown and, by necessity, parents will make decisions at a time when they are vulnerable. Support needs may differ where there is a family history of OI compared to an unexpected diagnosis of OI. Explaining fetal MSC transplantation in a way that all parents can understand, clear expectation setting, psychological support and time for reflection during the decision-making process will be crucial to allow parents to make informed decisions about participation in the BOOSTB4 clinical trial.

No abstract