Literature DB >> 11874309

Paying research subjects: an analysis of current policies.

Neal Dickert1, Ezekiel Emanuel, Christine Grady.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on guidelines used by research organizations to make decisions about paying subjects.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze existing guidance regarding payment of research subjects and to identify common characteristics and areas for further research.
DESIGN: Descriptive content analysis of policies. MEASUREMENTS: Written policies and rules of thumb about paying subjects from 32 U.S. research organizations.
RESULTS: Of 32 organizations, 37.5% had written guidelines about paying subjects; all but 1 reported having rules of thumb. Few (18.8%) were able to provide a confident estimate of the proportion of studies that pay subjects. Organizations reported that investigators and institutional review boards make payment decisions and that both healthy and ill subjects in some studies are paid for their time (87%), for inconvenience (84%), for travel (68%), as incentive (58%), or for incurring risk (32%). Most organizations require that payment be prorated (84%) and described in the consent document (94%).
CONCLUSIONS: Most organizations pay some research subjects, but few have written policies on payment. Because investigators and institutional review boards make payment decisions with little specific guidance, standards vary.

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11874309     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-5-200203050-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  39 in total

1.  Perceptions of reimbursement for clinical trial participation.

Authors:  Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Melissa Loza; Kathleen Vincent; Thomas Moench; Lawrence R Stanberry; Susan L Rosenthal
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  Payment of research subjects involved in clinical trials is unethical.

Authors:  Mark Bernstein
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.130

3.  The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process.

Authors:  J P Bentley; P G Thacker
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Assessing the bioethical integrity of a clinical trial in surgery.

Authors:  Mark Bernstein
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.089

5.  Strategies to minimize risks and exploitation in phase one trials on healthy subjects.

Authors:  Adil E Shamoo; David B Resnik
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 11.229

6.  Financial capacity in persons with schizophrenia and serious mental illness: clinical and research ethics aspects.

Authors:  Daniel C Marson; Robert Savage; Jacqueline Phillips
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-11-17       Impact factor: 9.306

7.  Avoiding Exploitation in Phase I Clinical Trials: More than (Un)Just Compensation.

Authors:  Matt Lamkin; Carl Elliott
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  Appraising Harm in Phase I Trials: Healthy Volunteers' Accounts of Adverse Events.

Authors:  Lisa McManus; Arlene Davis; Rebecca L Forcier; Jill A Fisher
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  Is informed consent related to success in exercise and diet intervention as evaluated at 12 months? DR's EXTRA study.

Authors:  Helena Länsimies-Antikainen; Anna-Maija Pietilä; Tomi Laitinen; Vesa Kiviniemi; Rainer Rauramaa
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Guidelines and Recommendations for Training Ethical Alcohol Researchers.

Authors:  Christal N Davis
Journal:  Train Educ Prof Psychol       Date:  2020-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.