Laura B Dunn1, Daniel S Kim, Ian E Fellows, Barton W Palmer. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, 401 Parnassus Avenue, Box GPP-0984, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. Laura.Dunn@ucsf.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Providing incentives for research participation is widely practiced but minimally studied. In schizophrenia research, questions about capacity to consent and potential vulnerability may raise concerns when offering incentives for participation. Despite empirical attention focused on consent and decision-making capacity in schizophrenia, the issue of incentives has been essentially ignored. We examined willingness to participate in research, in relation to perceived risks and benefits, among people with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. METHOD: Forty-six people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder rated perceived risks and benefits of 5 hypothetical research vignettes. They also indicated whether they would be willing to participate at each of 5 incentive levels (including no compensation). Cognition was assessed with Mattis Dementia Rating Scale. RESULTS: Ratings of risk and potential personal benefit were inversely correlated. For all scenarios, significant correlations were found between perceived risk and willingness to participate for greater compensation. Conversely, lower perceived likelihood of benefit was associated with a higher compensation threshold for participation in each scenario. Even at the highest proffered payment level for each scenario, however, a substantial proportion of respondents were not willing to participate. Risk assessment and willingness to participate (at all levels of compensation) were not associated with demographic variables or cognitive status. CONCLUSIONS: Determining whether incentives impede voluntarism remains an important task for empirical ethics research. Assessing potential research participants' understanding and perceptions of risks, benefits, and alternatives to participation will help ensure that informed consent fulfills its mission--embodying the ethical principle of respect for persons.
OBJECTIVE: Providing incentives for research participation is widely practiced but minimally studied. In schizophrenia research, questions about capacity to consent and potential vulnerability may raise concerns when offering incentives for participation. Despite empirical attention focused on consent and decision-making capacity in schizophrenia, the issue of incentives has been essentially ignored. We examined willingness to participate in research, in relation to perceived risks and benefits, among people with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. METHOD: Forty-six people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder rated perceived risks and benefits of 5 hypothetical research vignettes. They also indicated whether they would be willing to participate at each of 5 incentive levels (including no compensation). Cognition was assessed with Mattis Dementia Rating Scale. RESULTS: Ratings of risk and potential personal benefit were inversely correlated. For all scenarios, significant correlations were found between perceived risk and willingness to participate for greater compensation. Conversely, lower perceived likelihood of benefit was associated with a higher compensation threshold for participation in each scenario. Even at the highest proffered payment level for each scenario, however, a substantial proportion of respondents were not willing to participate. Risk assessment and willingness to participate (at all levels of compensation) were not associated with demographic variables or cognitive status. CONCLUSIONS: Determining whether incentives impede voluntarism remains an important task for empirical ethics research. Assessing potential research participants' understanding and perceptions of risks, benefits, and alternatives to participation will help ensure that informed consent fulfills its mission--embodying the ethical principle of respect for persons.
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
Authors: Laura Weiss Roberts; Teddy D Warner; Charles T Anderson; Megan V Smithpeter; Melinda K Rogers Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Ana S Iltis; Sahana Misra; Laura B Dunn; Gregory K Brown; Amy Campbell; Sarah A Earll; Anne Glowinski; Whitney B Hadley; Ronald Pies; James M Dubois Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Dustin C Krutsinger; Jacqueline McMahon; Alisa J Stephens-Shields; Brian Bayes; Steven Brooks; Brian L Hitsman; Su Fen Lubitz; Celine Reyes; Robert A Schnoll; S Ryan Greysen; Ashley Mercede; Mitesh S Patel; Catherine Reale; Fran Barg; Jason Karlawish; Daniel Polsky; Kevin G Volpp; Scott D Halpern Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Tenzin Tsungmey; Jane Paik Kim; Laura B Dunn; Katie Ryan; Kyle Lane-McKinley; Laura Weiss Roberts Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 4.791