Alexandra B Collins1, Carol Strike2, Adrian Guta3, Rosalind Baltzer Turje4, Patrick McDougall4, Surita Parashar5, Ryan McNeil6. 1. BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. School of Social Work, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada. 4. Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5. BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada. 6. BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Electronic address: rmcneil@cfenet.ubc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compensation for participating in research has been a fundamental element of the research apparatus despite concerns about its impact on incentivising participation. Researchers and research ethics boards acknowledge that compensation may prompt structurally vulnerable populations, such as people who use drugs (PWUD), to engage in research primarily out of financial need. Thus, institutional restrictions around compensation have been implemented. This study explores the ethical implications of compensation practices aimed at 'protecting' structurally vulnerable people living with HIV (PLHIV) who use drugs within the context of individuals' lived realities. METHODS: We draw on five focus groups conducted in 2011 with 25 PLHIV who use drugs and access a community-based HIV care facility in Vancouver, Canada. This analysis focused on participants' perceptions of research compensation, which became the central point of discussion in each group. RESULTS: Participants viewed research as a transactional process through which they could challenge the underpinnings of bioethics and bargain for compensation. Research compensation was thus critical to attracting participants and positioned as a 'legitimate' form of income. Participants' medicalised identities, specifically living with HIV, were fundamental to justifying compensation. The type of compensation (e.g. gift card, cash) also significantly impacted whether participants were fully compensated and, at times, served to exacerbate their structural vulnerability. CONCLUSION: Research compensation is critical in shaping structurally vulnerable populations' participation and experiences with research and can further marginalize individuals. Practices surrounding research compensation, particularly for drug-using and HIV-positive populations, need to be evaluated to ensure participants are equitably compensated for the expertise they provide.
BACKGROUND: Compensation for participating in research has been a fundamental element of the research apparatus despite concerns about its impact on incentivising participation. Researchers and research ethics boards acknowledge that compensation may prompt structurally vulnerable populations, such as people who use drugs (PWUD), to engage in research primarily out of financial need. Thus, institutional restrictions around compensation have been implemented. This study explores the ethical implications of compensation practices aimed at 'protecting' structurally vulnerable people living with HIV (PLHIV) who use drugs within the context of individuals' lived realities. METHODS: We draw on five focus groups conducted in 2011 with 25 PLHIV who use drugs and access a community-based HIV care facility in Vancouver, Canada. This analysis focused on participants' perceptions of research compensation, which became the central point of discussion in each group. RESULTS:Participants viewed research as a transactional process through which they could challenge the underpinnings of bioethics and bargain for compensation. Research compensation was thus critical to attracting participants and positioned as a 'legitimate' form of income. Participants' medicalised identities, specifically living with HIV, were fundamental to justifying compensation. The type of compensation (e.g. gift card, cash) also significantly impacted whether participants were fully compensated and, at times, served to exacerbate their structural vulnerability. CONCLUSION: Research compensation is critical in shaping structurally vulnerable populations' participation and experiences with research and can further marginalize individuals. Practices surrounding research compensation, particularly for drug-using and HIV-positive populations, need to be evaluated to ensure participants are equitably compensated for the expertise they provide.
Authors: David S Festinger; Douglas B Marlowe; Jason R Croft; Karen L Dugosh; Nicole K Mastro; Patricia A Lee; David S Dematteo; Nicholas S Patapis Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2005-01-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jenna Valleriani; Rebecca Haines-Saah; Rielle Capler; Ricky Bluthenthal; M Eugenia Socias; M J Milloy; Thomas Kerr; Ryan McNeil Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2020-04-11
Authors: Karriem S Watson; Vida Henderson; Marcus Murray; Adam B Murphy; Josef Ben Levi; Tiffany McDowell; Alfreda Holloway-Beth; Pooja Gogana; Michael A Dixon; LeAndre Moore; Ivanhoe Hall; Alexander Kimbrough; Yamilé Molina; Robert A Winn Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2019
Authors: Zachary L Mannes; Larry E Burrell; Erin G Ferguson; Zhi Zhou; Huiyin Lu; Charurut Somboonwit; Robert L Cook; Nicole Ennis Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 2.711