Literature DB >> 15173366

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

J P Bentley1, P G Thacker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of risk and payment on subjects' willingness to participate, and to examine how payment influences subjects' potential behaviours and risk evaluations.
METHODS: A 3 (level of risk) x 3 (level of monetary payment), between subjects, completely randomised factorial design was used. Students enrolled at one of five US pharmacy schools read a recruitment notice and informed consent form for a hypothetical study, and completed a questionnaire. Risk level was manipulated using recruitment notices and informed consent documents from hypothetical biomedical research projects. Payment levels were determined using the payment models evaluated by Dickert and Grady as a guide. Five dependent variables were assessed in the questionnaire: willingness to participate, willingness to participate with no payment, propensity to neglect to tell about restricted activities, propensity to neglect to tell about negative effects, and risk rating.
RESULTS: Monetary payment had positive effects on respondents' willingness to participate in research, regardless of the level of risk. However, higher monetary payments did not appear to blind respondents to the risks of a study. Payment had some influence on respondents' potential behaviours regarding concealing information about restricted activities. However, payment did not appear to have a significant effect on respondents' propensity to neglect to tell researchers about negative effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Monetary payments appear to do what they are intended to do: make subjects more willing to participate in research. Concerns about payments blinding subjects to risks could not be substantiated in the present study. However, the findings do raise other concerns--notably the potential for payments to diminish the integrity of a study's findings. Future research is critical to make sound decisions about the payment of research subjects.

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15173366      PMCID: PMC1733848          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.001594

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  20 in total

1.  Paying research subjects: an analysis of current policies.

Authors:  Neal Dickert; Ezekiel Emanuel; Christine Grady
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-03-05       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  On paying money to research subjects: 'due' and 'undue' inducements.

Authors:  Ruth Macklin
Journal:  IRB       Date:  1981-05

3.  Guinea pigs on the payroll: the ethics of paying research subjects.

Authors:  Trudo Lemmens; Carl Elliott
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Paying hypertension research subjects.

Authors:  David Casarett; Jason Karlawish; David A Asch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Weight of financial reward in the decision by medical students and experienced healthy volunteers to participate in clinical trials.

Authors:  J Bigorra; J E Baños
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Monetary inducement to research participation.

Authors:  W E Palmer
Journal:  Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc       Date:  1985

7.  Adverse events and discomfort in studies on healthy subjects: the volunteer's perspective. A survey conducted by the German Association for Applied Human Pharmacology.

Authors:  R Hermann; D Heger-Mahn; M Mahler; M Seibert-Grafe; C Klipping; K Breithaupt-Grögler; C de Mey
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Incentives in research: ethical issues.

Authors:  J A Erlen; R J Sauder; M P Mellors
Journal:  Orthop Nurs       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 0.913

9.  For love or money? An exploratory study of why injecting drug users participate in research.

Authors:  C Fry; R Dwyer
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 6.526

10.  Participation in clinical drug studies: motivations and barriers.

Authors:  K A Cunny; H W Miller
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.393

View more
  87 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.  Attitudes of Mothers Regarding Willingness to Enroll Their Children in Research.

Authors:  Jane Paik Kim; Maryam Rostami; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  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

Review 4.  Towards evidence based bioethics.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-10-15

5.  Willingness of subjects with thought disorder to participate in research.

Authors:  Philip J Candilis; Cynthia M A Geppert; Kenneth E Fletcher; Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 9.306

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

Review 7.  Emerging empirical evidence on the ethics of schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Philip J Candilis; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 9.306

8.  Recruitment strategies in two reproductive medicine network infertility trials.

Authors:  Rebecca S Usadi; Michael P Diamond; Richard S Legro; William D Schlaff; Karl R Hansen; Peter Casson; Gregory Christman; G Wright Bates; Valerie Baker; Aimee Seungdamrong; Mitchell P Rosen; Scott Lucidi; Tracey Thomas; Hao Huang; Nanette Santoro; Esther Eisenberg; Heping Zhang; Ruben Alvero
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 2.226

9.  Protecting and respecting the vulnerable: existing regulations or further protections?

Authors:  Stephanie R Solomon
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2013-02

10.  Patients as research partners; how to value their perceptions, contribution and labor?

Authors:  Elise Smith; Jean-Chrisophe Bélisle-Pipon; David Resnik
Journal:  Citiz Sci       Date:  2019-03-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.