Perceptions of financial payment for research participation among African-American drug users in HIV studies

Operationalizing Equity, Inclusion, and Access in Research Practice at a Large Academic Institution

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare advances are hindered by underrepresentation in prospective research; sociodemographic, data, and measurement infidelity in retrospective research; and a paucity of guidelines surrounding equitable research practices.

OBJECTIVE

The Joint Research Practices Working Group was created in 2021 to develop and disseminate guidelines for the conduct of inclusive and equitable research.

METHODS

Volunteer faculty and staff from two research centers at the University of Pennsylvania initiated a multi-pronged approach to guideline development, including literature searches, center-level feedback, and mutual learning with local experts.

RESULTS

We developed guidelines for (1) participant payment and incentives; (2) language interpretation and translation; (3) plain language in research communications; (4) readability of study materials; and (5) inclusive language for scientific communications. Key recommendations include (1) offer cash payments and multiple payment options to participants when required actions are completed; (2) identify top languages of your target population, map points of contact, and determine available interpretation and translation resources; (3) assess reading levels of materials and simplify language, targeting 6th- to 8th-grade reading levels; (4) improve readability through text formatting and style, symbols, and visuals; and (5) use specific, humanizing terms as adjectives rather than nouns.

CONCLUSIONS

Diversity, inclusion, and access are critical values for research conduct that promotes justice and equity. These values can be operationalized through organizational commitment that combines bottom-up and top-down approaches and through partnerships across organizations that promote mutual learning and synergy. While our guidelines represent best practices at one time, we recognize that practices evolve and need to be evaluated continuously for accuracy and relevance. Our intention is to bring awareness to these critical topics and form a foundation for important conversations surrounding equitable and inclusive research practices.

Comprehension of informed consent and voluntary participation in registration cohorts for phase IIb HIV vaccine trial in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania: a qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Informed consent as stipulated in regulatory human research guidelines requires volunteers to be well-informed about what will happen to them in a trial. However, researchers may be faced with the challenge of how to ensure that a volunteer agreeing to take part in a clinical trial is truly informed. This study aimed to find out volunteers' comprehension of informed consent and voluntary participation in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) clinical trials during the registration cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study among volunteers who were enrolled in the registration cohort of HIV clinical trials in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. A purposive sampling strategy was used to obtain twenty study participants. The data were collected between June and September 2020 using a semi-structured interview guide. In-depth interviews were used to collect the data to obtain deep insights of the individual study participants on the comprehension of informed consent and participation in the clinical trial. A thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the data. Themes and subthemes were supported by the quotes from the participants.

RESULTS

Volunteers described comprehension of informed consent from different perspectives. They reported that various components of the informed consent such as study procedure, confidentiality, risk and benefits were grasped during engagement meetings. Furthermore, the volunteers' decision to participate in the registration cohort was voluntary. However, trial aspects such as health insurance, free condoms, and medical checkups could have indirectly influenced their reluctance to withdraw from the study.

CONCLUSION

Engagement meetings may increase the comprehension of informed consent among potential participants for HIV clinical trials. However, trial incentives may influence participation, and thus future research should focus on the challenges of giving incentives in the study. This will ensure comprehension and voluntary participation in the context of HIV clinical trials.

Effectiveness and Ethics of Incentives for Research Participation: 2 Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Incentivizing research participation is controversial and variably regulated because of uncertainty regarding whether financial incentives serve as undue inducements by diminishing peoples' sensitivity to research risks or unjust inducements by preferentially increasing enrollment among underserved individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether incentives improve enrollment in real randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or serve as undue or unjust inducements.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Two RCTs of incentives that were embedded in 2 parent RCTs, 1 comparing smoking cessation interventions (conducted at smoking cessation clinics in 2 health systems) and 1 evaluating an ambulation intervention (conducted across wards of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) included all persons eligible for the parent trials who did not have prior knowledge of the incentives trials. Recruitment occurred from September 2017 to August 2019 for the smoking trial and January 2018 through May 2019 for the ambulation trial; data were analyzed from January 2020 to July 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to incentives of $0, $200, or $500 for participating in the smoking cessation trial and $0, $100, or $300 for the ambulation trial.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of each incentive trial was the proportion of people assigned to each recruitment strategy that consented to participate. Each trial was powered to test the hypotheses that incentives served neither as undue inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and perceived research risk, as measured using a 10-point scale, on the primary outcome), nor unjust inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and participants' self-reported income). Noninferiority methods were used to test whether the data were compatible with these 2 effects of incentives and superiority methods to compare the primary and other secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There were a total of 654 participants (327 women [50.0%]; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.1] years; 394 Black/African American [60.2%], 214 White [32.7%], and 24 multiracial individuals [3.7%]) in the smoking trial, and 642 participants (364 women [56.7%]; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.6] years; 224 Black/African American [34.9%], 335 White [52.2%], and 5 multiracial individuals [0.8%]) in the ambulation trial. Incentives significantly increased consent rates among those in the smoking trial in 47 of 216 (21.8%), 78 of 217 (35.9%), and 104 of 221 (47.1%) in the $0, $200, and $500 groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for each increase in incentive, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.34-2.17; P < .001). Incentives did not increase consent among those in the ambulation trial: 98 of 216 (45.4%), 102 of 212 (48.1%), and 92 of 214 (43.0%) in the $0, $100, and $300 groups, respectively (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22; P = .45). In neither trial was there evidence of undue or unjust inducement (upper confidence limits of ORs for undue inducement, 1.15 and 0.99; P < .001 showing noninferiority; upper confidence limits of ORs for unjust inducement, 1.21 and 1.26; P = .01 and P < .001, respectively). There were no significant effects of incentive size on the secondary outcomes in either trial, including time spent reviewing the risk sections of consent forms, perceived research risks, trial understanding, perceived coercion, or therapeutic misconceptions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In these 2 randomized clinical trials, financial incentives increased trial enrollment in 1 of 2 trials and did not produce undue or unjust inducement or other unintended consequences in either trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697799.

Effects of financial incentives on volunteering for clinical trials: A randomized vignette experiment

BACKGROUND

Financial incentives may aid recruitment to clinical trials, but evidence regarding risk/burden-driven variability in participant preferences for incentives is limited. We developed and tested a framework to support real-world decisions on recruitment budget.

METHODS

We included two phases: an Anchoring Survey, to ensure we could capture perceived unpleasantness on a range of life events, and a Vignette Experiment, to explore relationships between financial incentives and participants' perceived risk/burden and willingness to participate in high- and low-risk/burden versions of five vignettes drawn from common research activities. We compared vignette ratings to identify similarly rated life events from the Anchoring Survey to contextualize ratings of study risk.

RESULTS

In our Anchoring Survey (n = 643), mean ratings (scale 1 = lowest risk/burden to 5 = highest risk/burden) indicated that the questions made sense to participants, with highest risk assigned to losing house in a fire (4.72), and lowest risk assigned to having blood pressure taken (1.13). In the Vignette Experiment (n = 534), logistic regression indicated that amount of offered financial incentive and perceived risk/burden level were the top two drivers of willingness to participate in four of the five vignettes. Comparison of event ratings in the Anchoring Survey with the Vignette Experiment ratings suggested reasonable concordance on severity of risk/burden.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated feasibility of a framework for assessing participant perceptions of risk for study activities and discerned directionality of relationship between financial incentives and willingness to participate. Future work will explore use of this framework as an evidence-gathering approach for gauging appropriate incentives in real-world study contexts.

Promoting Ethical Payment in Human Infection Challenge Studies

To prepare for potential human infection challenge studies (HICS) involving SARS-CoV-2, we convened a multidisciplinary working group to address ethical questions regarding whether and how much SARS-CoV-2 HICS participants should be paid. Because the goals of paying HICS participants, as well as the relevant ethical concerns, are the same as those arising for other types of clinical research, the same basic framework for ethical payment can apply. This framework divides payment into reimbursement, compensation, and incentives, focusing on fairness and promoting adequate recruitment and retention as counterweights to concerns about undue inducement. Within the basic framework, several factors are especially salient for HICS, and for SARS-CoV-2 HICS in particular, including the nature of participant confinement, anticipated discomfort, risks and uncertainty, participant motivations, and trust. These factors are reflected in a payment worksheet created to help sponsors, researchers, and ethics reviewers systematically develop and assess ethically justifiable payment amounts.

Paying Participants in COVID-19 Trials

Trials are in development and underway to examine potential interventions for treatment and prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). How should we think about offering payment to participants in these trials? Payment for research participation is ethically contentious even under ideal circumstances. Here, we review 3 functions of research payment-reimbursement, compensation, and incentive-and identify heightened and novel ethical concerns in the context of a global pandemic. We argue that COVID-19 trial participants should usually be offered reimbursement for research-related expenses, and compensation for their time and effort, as for other types of research under usual circumstances. Given increased risk of undue influence against pandemic background conditions, incentive payment should be avoided unless essential to recruitment and retention in important trials whose social value outweighs this risk. Where essential, however, incentives can be ethically permissible, so long as reasonable efforts are made to minimize the possibility of undue influence.

The Association between Emergency Department Super-Utilizer Status and Willingness to Participate in Research

BACKGROUND

Research based on emergency departments (EDs) primarily focuses on medical conditions. There is limited research that investigates patients who willingly participate in research. This current study explored ED super-utilizers' (SUs') and nonsuper-utilizers' (NSUs') attitudes toward research.

OBJECTIVE

The study assesses the willingness of SUs to participate in research. We hypothesize that the SU population will be as interested as nonutilizers in participating in medical research.

METHODS

This prospective observational study stratified participants into SU and NSU cohorts based on their self-reported number of ED visits within 6 months. Surveys were captured in a secured database and analyzed using SAS 9.4.

RESULTS

7,481 completed questionnaires. SUs were more interested in participating in all types of research compared to NSUs. Both groups were most willing to participate in surveys. Neither group was particularly interested in studies that required medications. SUs were not more willing to participate in studies without payment than NSUs. Both groups trusted researchers at the same rates.

CONCLUSION

Although rarely included in medical research, SUs were more willing to participate in nearly all types of research and expressed a similar trust in medical research when compared to nonsuper-utilizers.

Satisfaction and perceptions of research participants in clinical and translational studies: An urban multi-institution with CTSA

Purpose:

To examine research participants’ levels of satisfaction and perceptions and aid researchers to better engage research volunteers from all racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials. A participant satisfaction survey was developed that focused on three domains to reflect satisfaction with delivery of care, environment, and center operations. In addition, the survey contained open-ended questions to reflect overall experiences and perceptions. Two hundred and seventy-eight participants (55% African American and 29% non-Hispanic Whites) with an average age of 52 years completed the survey.

Results:

The results indicated that the majority of the participants rated their satisfaction very highly across all domains. Ninety percent stated they were very satisfied/satisfied or very strongly agreed/agreed in the three domains. Obtaining high-quality care/access to health care professionals (60%), learning more about their illness/disease (60%), and helping others (57%) were noted as important factors in choosing to participate in a trial. Regarding overall experience, majority of respondents stated that friendliness, expertise of staff, learning more about their disease, and contributing to science were important. Further, financial compensation was not a primary motivation for participation. A majority of participants stated that they would participate in future studies and would recommend a friend or a family member to participate in clinical trials.

Conclusions:

The findings indicate that the degree of satisfaction with the research staff and with the specific trial itself are important determinants for enrolling, completing a study, and for participating in future trials.

Economic vulnerability and payment for research participation

There has been significant analysis of the ethical and regulatory issues involved with paying research participants, but less attention has been focused specifically on paying economically vulnerable individuals and the unique challenges it may present. This is important, as individuals of lower socio-economic standing are present in all disease groups and study populations. Moreover, clinical research is often conducted in economically under-developed locales, such as lower- or middle-income countries as well as impoverished locales of otherwise wealthy nations (such as, for example, rural Appalachia in the United States). Is it ethical to offer payment in such contexts? What are the ethical considerations relevant for determining payment rates and practices to individuals who are economically vulnerable? We offer an analysis of these issues, focusing on four unique areas of concern: (1) whether the risk of undue influence is greater for economically vulnerable individuals than for wealthier ones; (2) whether payment unacceptably raises the risk of ‘unjust influence’ or disproportionate representation of poor people in clinical research; (3) the positive reasons in favor of paying economically vulnerable people that stem from the ethical value of fairness; and (4) appropriate compensation rates for economically vulnerable populations. Our analysis supports the position that payment to economically vulnerable populations is ethically justified and indeed desirable when certain conditions are met.

Offering Payment in Clinical Research: Enrolling Individuals With or at Risk for Opioid Use Disorder

Offering payment is an important means of facilitating research participation. Yet, offers of payment raise ethical challenges that may be heightened when prospective participants suffer from or are at risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). We surveyed principal investigators (PIs) conducting research in this population to characterize the relative importance they assign to various ethical and practical factors when designing offers of payment and also analyzed descriptions of payment in both their study advertisements and consent forms. Overall, we found that, despite literature suggesting heightened ethical concerns for this population, practical factors related to payment were more influential for PIs than either ethical factors or factors unique to individuals with or at risk for OUD. Our findings can help inform the development of ethical, effective recruitment and retention strategies for research in this population.

A pilot randomized trial of five financial incentive strategies to increase study enrollment and retention rates

Background

Enrollment and retention difficulties remain major barriers to conducting clinical trials. Financial incentives may promote clinical trial enrollment, however delivery methods to maximize enrollment, maximize retention, and minimize cost remains uncertain.

Methods

We conducted a single-blind, web-based randomized controlled trial of five financial incentive strategies on enrollment and retention rates in a longitudinal study of advance directives among community-dwelling older adults. Participants were eligible to receive a fixed total financial incentive, but the disbursement amounts at each study timepoint (baseline, 2-weeks, 4-weeks, and 6-weeks) differed between study arms. At each timepoint, participants completed a different advance directive. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes of enrollment and retention.

Results

1803 adults were randomized to one of five incentive strategies: constant n = 361; increasing n = 357; U-shaped n = 361; surprise n = 360; self-select n = 364. Overall, 989 (54.9%) participants elected to enroll in the advance directive study. There were no differences in enrollment rates between the control (constant 53.5%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 54.3%, p = 0.81; U-shaped 57.3%, p = 0.30; surprise 56.9%, p = 0.35; and self-select 52.2%, p = 0.73). There were no differences in retention rates between the control (constant 2.1%) and any of the four intervention study arms (increasing 5.2%, p = 0.09; U-shaped 3.9%, p = 0.23; surprise 2.4%, p = 0.54; self-select 2.1%, p = 0.63).

Conclusions

Financial incentive programs for trial enrollment informed by behavioral economic insights were no more effective than a constant-payment approach in this web-based pilot study.

Public motives and willingness to participate in first-in-human clinical trials in Saudi Arabia: A new era in the making

BACKGROUND

Participation in first-in-human (FIH) clinical trials is a valuable contribution to science. This study aims to investigate the Saudi public's attitude toward FIH clinical trials, identify their willingness to take part in it, and their preferences for participating in these kinds of trials, given the fact that the Saudi FDA has never approved such studies in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

This was a cross sectional study conducted in February 2018. It was based on a self-reported survey distributed by convenience among Saudi adults visiting a national festival in Riyadh and through social media. Data were analysed using descriptive and bivariate statistics, as well as linear and binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

Study participants who were invited and completed the survey were 657. The percentage mean score of participants' attitudes and concern was 70.1 ± 16.4 and 58.3 ± 15.3 respectively. Almost 71.5% expressed their intention to enroll in such trials. Higher attitudinal scores were reported by those who perceived healthcare services as good/excellent (adj.P < 0.001), and by those who had less concerns (adj.P = 0.005). Less educated participants were 1.75 [1.04-2.93] times more likely to enroll in future clinical trials, adj.P = 0.035. For every one unit increase in the attitudinal score, study participants were 1.03 [1.02-1.04] more likely to enroll in future trials, adj.P < 0.001. In contrary, for every one unit increase in concern scores, the odds of enrollment decreased among study participants by 0.98 [0.97-0.99], adj.P = 0.017. The factors causing people to decline participation were mainly fear of the unknown, social reasons, religious reasons, moral reasons, and the concern over human beings being treated as animals. The preferred duration for participation was 1-3 days (n = 268, 57%). Participants revealed their preferences of clinical trial studies were in favor: (a) vaccines (n = 209, 44.5%); (b) treatment drugs (n = 232, 49.4%); and (c) medical devices (n = 310, 66.0%).

CONCLUSION

The Saudi public community showed a high level of enthusiasm for participation in future FIH clinical trials, yet they had some reservations. Increasing public awareness about the benefits of clinical trials and conduction process helps to alleviate the concerns of the Saudi people and to increase their likelihood of enrollment.

Association Between Financial Incentives and Participant Deception About Study Eligibility

IMPORTANCE

Offers of payment for research participation are ubiquitous but may lead prospective participants to deceive about eligibility, jeopardizing study integrity and participant protection. To date, neither the rate of payment-induced deception nor the influence of payment amount has been systematically studied in a nationally representative randomized survey experiment.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate payment-associated deception about eligibility for an online survey and to assess whether there is an association between payment amount and deception frequency.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, 7-group survey experiment. Data were collected in March 2018 and analyzed from March to August 2018. The setting was a nationally representative online survey among US adults drawn from the GfK KnowledgePanel.

INTERVENTIONS

Varying payment amounts for participation ($5, $10, or $20 cash equivalent) and direction of eligibility criterion (having received or not having received an influenza vaccination in the past 6 months).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of respondents reporting recent influenza vaccination.

RESULTS

In total, 2275 individuals participated in the survey, a 59.4% (2275 of 3829) response rate; 51.8% (1108) were female, and 21.1% of respondents (399) were aged 18 to 29 years, 24.9% (532) were aged 30 to 44 years, 26.0% (601) were aged 45 to 59 years, and 28.0% (738) were 60 years or older. For participants offered a $5 incentive, the reported frequency of recent influenza vaccination was 16.6% higher (95% CI, 9.1%-24.1%) among those told that eligibility (and thus payment) required recent vaccination than among those told that eligibility required no recent vaccination. The corresponding differences were 21.0% (95% CI, 13.5%-28.5%) among those offered $10 and 15.4% (95% CI, 7.8%-23.0%) among those offered $20. Estimated proportions of ineligible individuals who responded deceptively regarding eligibility ranged from 10.5% to 22.8% across study groups. There was no evidence that higher payment was associated with higher frequency of deception.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In a nationally representative randomized survey experiment to evaluate whether and to what extent payment is associated with participants misleading investigators about their research eligibility, this study found evidence of significant deception. However, no association was observed between payment amount and frequency of deception. Further research is needed to extend these findings to clinical research. These data suggest that, when possible, investigators should rely on objective tests of eligibility rather than self-report.

Randomized evaluation of trial acceptability by INcentive (RETAIN): Study protocol for two embedded randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The most common and conceptually sound ethical concerns with financial incentives for research participation are that they may (1) represent undue inducements by blunting peoples' perceptions of research risks, thereby preventing fully informed consent; or (2) represent unjust inducements by encouraging enrollment preferentially among the poor. Neither of these concerns has been shown to manifest in studies testing the effects of incentives on decisions to participate in hypothetical randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but neither has been assessed in real RCTs.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

We are conducting randomized trials of real incentives embedded within two parent RCTs. In each of two trials conducted in parallel, we are randomizing 576 participants to one of three incentive groups. Following preliminary determination of patients' eligibility in the parent RCT, we assess patients' research attitudes, demographic characteristics, perceived research risks, time spent reviewing consent documents, ability to distinguish research from patient care, and comprehension of key trial features. These quantitative assessments will be supplemented by semi-structured interviews for a selected group of participants that more deeply explore patients' motivations for trial participation. The trials are each designed to have adequate power to rule out undue and unjust inducement. We are also exploring potential benefits of incentives, including possible increased attention to research risks and cost-effectiveness.

Profiling of victimization, perpetration, and participation: A latent class analysis among people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Persons with severe mental illness are more prone to victimization and experience more difficulties regarding societal participation than other community members. These experiences vary greatly among individuals. Community mental health care should offer more individualized support by addressing these differences in experience. Therefore, this study aimed to identify subgroups of outpatients with severe mental illness based on their experiences of social participation and victimization.

METHODS

Data from patients with severe mental illness from eight outpatient teams in the Netherlands were used to perform latent class analysis. From the total caseload, 395 patients agreed to participate. Classes were based on: i) criminal victimization incidents, ii) criminal perpetration incidents (Dutch Safety Monitor), iii) experienced discrimination (DISC-12), and iv) social functioning (Social Functioning Scale). Also, to investigate differences between the classes, socio-demographic, clinical, and person-related variables were examined.

RESULTS

Three classes were identified. The Victimized and Perpetrating class (34.4%) had the highest prevalence of discrimination, victimization, and perpetration, and intermediate scores on social functioning subscales. This class also experienced the most problems in other domains, such as psychosocial functioning and quality of life. The Discriminated and Avoiding class (36.4%) had moderate scores for discrimination, victimization and perpetration, and the lowest scores for social functioning and social support. The General Difficulties class (28.8%) had the lowest prevalence of discrimination, victimization, and perpetration, and the highest scores on social functioning.

DISCUSSION

These distinct classes offer new insights to mental health professionals in outpatient teams in in their aim to positively influence the patient's social context during rehabilitation; this includes addressing the role of victimization, and indicates the relevance of distinctive approaches and the support needed for each class. Professionals may need to focus more on the impact of difficulties in their patients' social context to adequately support them in the rehabilitation process.

"Money Helps": People who inject drugs and their perceptions of financial compensation and its ethical implications

This study documents how people who inject drugs (PWID) in rural Puerto Rico perceive payments for participating in HIV epidemiological studies. In-depth interviews were conducted among a subset (n = 40) of active PWID older than 18 years of age who had been previously enrolled in a much larger study (N = 360). Findings suggest that financial compensation was the main motivation for initially enrolling in the parent study. Then, as trust in the researchers developed, participants came to perceive compensation as part of a reciprocal exchange in which they assisted researchers by providing a trustful account of their experiences and researchers reciprocated with financial support.

The ethics of uninsured participants accessing healthcare in biomedical research: A literature review

Background/aims Sparse literature exists on the challenges and ethical considerations of including people with limited access to healthcare, such as the uninsured and low-income, in clinical research in high-income countries. However, many ethical issues should be considered with respect to working with uninsured and low-income participants in clinical research, including enrollment and retention, ancillary care, and post-trial responsibilities. Attention to the uninsured and low-income is particularly salient in the United States due to the high rates of uninsurance and underinsurance. Thus, we conducted a scoping review on the ethical considerations of biomedical clinical research with uninsured and low-income participants in high-income countries in order to describe what is known and to pinpoint areas of needed research on this issue. Methods MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched using terms that described main concepts of interest (e.g., uninsured, underinsured, access to healthcare, poverty, ethics, compensation, clinical research). Articles were included if they met four inclusion criteria: (1) English, (2) high-income countries context, (3) about research participants who are uninsured or low-income, which limits their access to healthcare, and in biomedical clinical research that either had a prospect of direct medical benefit or was offered to them on the basis of their ill health, and (4) recognizes and/or addresses challenges or ethical considerations of uninsured or low-income participants in biomedical clinical research. Results The searches generated a total of 974 results. Ultimately, 23 papers were included in the scoping review. Of 23 articles, the majority (n = 19) discussed enrollment and retention of uninsured or low-income participants. Several barriers to enrolling uninsured and low-income groups were identified, including limited access to primary or preventive care; lack of access to institutions conducting trials or physicians with enough time or knowledge about trials; overall lack of trust in the government, research, or medical system; and logistical issues. Considerably fewer articles discussed treatment of these participants during the course of research (n = 5) or post-trial responsibilities owed to them (n = 4). Thus, we propose a research agenda that builds upon the existing literature by addressing three broad questions: (1) What is the current status of uninsured research participants in biomedical clinical research in high-income countries? (2) How should uninsured research participants be treated during and after clinical research? (3) How, if at all, should additional protections for uninsured research participants affect their enrollment? Conclusions This review reveals significant gaps in both data and thoughtful analysis on how to ethically involve uninsured research participants. To address these gaps, we propose a research agenda to gather needed data and theoretical analysis that addresses three broad research questions.

Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review

Clinical trials are time consuming, expensive, and often burdensome on patients. Clinical trials can fail for many reasons. This survey reviews many of these reasons and offers insights on opportunities for improving the likelihood of creating and executing successful clinical trials. Literature from the past 30 years was reviewed for relevant data. Common patterns in reported successful trials are identified, including factors regarding the study site, study coordinator/investigator, and the effects on participating patients. Specific instances where artificial intelligence can help improve clinical trials are identified.

The association of therapeutic versus recreational marijuana use and antiretroviral adherence among adults living with HIV in Florida

PURPOSE

Marijuana use is common among people living with HIV (PLWH), but its association with antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence is unclear. This study examined the association between reason for marijuana use and ART adherence in a sample of adults living with HIV.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants (N=703) recruited from seven community health centers in Florida completed a 45-minute questionnaire assessing demographics, symptoms of anxiety and depression, ART adherence, and substance use, including reasons for marijuana use. ART adherence was defined as the proportion of days in the last 30 days participants did not miss any medication and dichotomized as optimal (≥95%) and suboptimal (<95%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis assessed the association between therapeutic marijuana use to manage HIV symptoms (ie, improve appetite/gain weight, induce sleep, relieve nausea/vomiting, relieve pain, relieve anxiety/depression/stress) versus recreational marijuana use and ART adherence.

RESULTS

Approximately one third (33.2%) of the participants reported using marijuana in the past 3 months. Of marijuana users, 21.8% reported using marijuana only for therapeutic purposes to manage HIV-associated medical symptoms, while 78.2% reported recreational use. After controlling for covariates, therapeutic use of marijuana was not associated with ART adherence (AOR =1.19, 95% CI =0.60-2.38, p=0.602) while recreational marijuana users showed significantly greater odds of suboptimal ART adherence compared to nonusers (AOR =1.80, 95% CI =1.18-2.72, p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest differences in ART adherence between individuals who report recreational versus therapeutic marijuana use. Continued research examining the health implications of marijuana use among adults living with HIV is important as legalization of recreational and medical marijuana proliferates in the United States.

Research participation, trust, and fair compensation among people living with and without HIV in Florida

Florida has the second highest number of newly diagnosed cases of HIV in the United States. Sociodemographic representation that is reflective of the population is essential in developing evidence based interventions to improve HIV outcomes and reduce disparities. Understanding HIV research trial participation, preferences for types of research, and fair compensation for research will further our understanding of someone's decision to participate in research. The purpose of this analysis was to identify differences in prior research participation, trust, interests in types of research, and fair compensation between people living with HIV and without HIV in North Central Florida. In this sample of 8340 people interviewed in the community about their health concerns and research participation, 156 reported living with HIV. Only 20.5% of people with HIV reported past participation in research, however 94.2% said they were interested in future research participation. While people with HIV were slightly more interested in higher risk/low convenience research, there were no statistically significant differences in preferences for types of research between those with and without HIV. People with HIV reported no difference in the amount they would request for fair compensation ($78.4 USD) compared with those without HIV ($72.2 USD, p = 0.69). Community members are interested in participating in research, although few had previously participated. Improving our understanding of research study participation will help improve recruitment efforts and draw stronger conclusions regarding the effectiveness of interventions, as well as enhance implementation of these interventions.

Potential Risks of Ecological Momentary Assessment Among Persons Who Inject Drugs

BACKGROUND

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA)-which often involves brief surveys delivered via mobile technology-has transformed our understanding of the individual and contextual micro-processes associated with legal and illicit drug use. However, little empirical research has focused on participant's perspective on the probability and magnitude of potential risks in EMA studies.

OBJECTIVES

To garner participant perspectives on potential risks common to EMA studies of illicit drug use.

METHODS

We interviewed 38 persons who inject drugs living in San Diego (CA) and Philadelphia (PA), United States. They completed simulations of an EMA tool and then underwent a semi-structured interview that systematically explored domains of risk considered within the proposed revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or the "Common Rule." Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded systematically to explore psychological, physical, social, legal, and informational risks from participation.

RESULTS

Participants perceived most risks to be minimal. Some indicated that repetitive questioning about mood or drug use could cause psychological (i.e., anxiety) or behavioral risks (i.e., drug use relapse). Ironically, the questions that were viewed as risky were considered motivational to engage in healthy behaviors. The most cited risks were legal and social risks stemming from participant concerns about data collection and security.

IMPORTANCE

Improving our understanding of these issues is an essential first step to protect human participants in future EMA research. We provide a brief set of recommendations that can aid in the design and ethics review of the future EMA protocol with substance using populations.

Paying Research Participants: Regulatory Uncertainty, Conceptual Confusion, and a Path Forward

The practice of offering payment to individuals in exchange for their participation in clinical research is widespread and longstanding. Nevertheless, such payment remains the source of substantial debate, in particular about whether or the extent to which offers of payment coerce and/or unduly induce individuals to participate. Yet, the various laws, regulations, and ethical guidelines that govern the conduct of human subjects research offer relatively little in the way of specific guidance regarding what makes a payment offer ethically acceptable-or not. Moreover, there is a lack of definitional agreement regarding what the terms coercion and undue inducement mean in the human subjects research context. It is, therefore, unsurprising that investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) experience confusion about how to evaluate offers of payment, and lean toward conservative approaches. These trends are exemplified by our pilot data regarding the ways in which some IRB members and investigators (mis)understand the concepts of coercion and undue inducement, as well as the ways in which certain research institutions oversee offers of payment at a local level. This article systematically examines the legal and ethical dimensions of offering payment to research participants. It argues that many concerns about offers of payment to research participants can be attributed to the misguided view that such offers ought to be treated differently than offers of payment in other contexts, a form of "research exceptionalism." We show that rejection of research exceptionalism with respect to payment helps settle open debates about both how best to define coercion and undue influence, and how to understand the relation between these concepts and offers of payment. We argue for adoption of our preferred definitions, ideally by regulatory authorities, and against the conventional conservatism toward payment of research participants. Instead, we draw attention to the rarely asked, even radical, question: are research participants paid enough? We conclude by arguing that we ought to change the default to favor, rather than encourage suspicion of, offers of payment to research participants.

"We're giving you something so we get something in return": Perspectives on research participation and compensation among people living with HIV who use drugs

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.

Could providing financial incentives to research participants be ultimately self-defeating?

Controversy over providing financial incentives to research participants has a long history and remains an issue of contention in both current discussions about research ethics and for institutional review bodies/human research ethics committees which are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether such incentives fall within ethical guidelines. The arguments both for and against financial incentives have been well aired in the literature. A point of agreement for many is that inducement in the form of financial incentive is permissible when the risk of harm to the individual is negligible in terms of degree and probability of occurrence. In the absence of harm to the individual, encouraging more people to participate in research would appear to be a good thing in so far as it will lead to statistically more robust research outcomes, which can then be translated into better healthcare and other practice. Whilst, on the face of it, this position seems highly defensible, I will explore the possibility that it is counterproductive – that is, providing individuals with financial incentives to become research participants may have the unintended outcome of reducing participation rates in some areas of research. In exploring this idea I will draw on empirical findings from the literature on crowding-out – the hypothesis that providing monetary incentives to people can backfire by overall reducing intrinsic motivation, in this instance intrinsic motivation to behave altruistically or undertake civic duties.

The Effect of Research Compensation in the Form of Cheques on Gamblers' Cash-in Behaviour

A view that is commonly held by Research Ethics Board members is that offering money as research compensation has the potential to unduly influence or even coerce subjects into participating in studies. Because money is the core resource of gambling activity, gamblers with financial needs might show an increased propensity to take part in research that offers financial compensation. We hypothesized that pathological gamblers at electronic gambling machines in venues outside of casinos would tend to cash in their compensation cheque faster than non-pathological gamblers would. The current results support this hypothesis. It is therefore necessary to understand gamblers' motivations related to research activities and the ways in which the research context can sustain rational decision making when gamblers consider taking part in scientific studies.

Perceptions of research risk and undue influence: Implications for ethics of research conducted with cocaine users

BACKGROUND

Despite the prominence of human laboratory and clinical trial research in the development of interventions for substance use disorders, this research presents numerous ethical challenges. Ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report, including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, have traditionally guided research conduct. Few empirical studies exist examining substance abuse research ethics. The present study examined perceptions of beneficence and respect for persons in substance use research, including relative risk and desired monetary compensation, using an online sample of cocaine users.

METHODS

The study was conducted on Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk (mTurk), a crowdsourcing website used for survey-based research. Of 1764 individuals screened, 138 reported past year cocaine use. These respondents completed a battery of standardized and experimenter-designed questionnaires used to characterize each respondent's self-reported attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors about drug use and the relative risks and desired monetary compensation associated with research participation.

RESULTS

Ratings of relative risk revealed that most respondents found common research practices as less than or equal to the relative risk of everyday life. Receiving experimental medication outside the hospital was rated as the most risky research activity, but on average was not rated as presenting more risk than everyday life. Desired compensation for research participation was associated with the perceived risk of research activities. Increases in desired compensation for participation were only observed for research perceived as much more risky than everyday activities.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that cocaine users assess risk in a way that is consistent with standard research practice.

Benefits in cash or in kind? A community consultation on types of benefits in health research on the Kenyan Coast

Background

Providing benefits and payments to participants in health research, either in cash or in kind, is a common but ethically controversial practice. While much literature has concentrated on appropriate levels of benefits or payments, this paper focuses on less well explored ethical issues around the nature of study benefits, drawing on views of community members living close to an international health research centre in Kenya.

Methods

The consultation, including 90 residents purposively chosen to reflect diversity, used a two-stage deliberative process. Five half-day workshops were each followed by between two and four small group discussions, within a two week period (total 16 groups). During workshops and small groups, facilitators used participatory methods to share information, and promote reflection and debate on ethical issues around types of benefits, including cash, goods, medical and community benefits. Data from workshop and field notes, and voice recordings of small group discussions, were managed using Nvivo 10 and analysed using a Framework Analysis approach.

Findings and Conclusions

The methods generated in-depth discussion with high levels of engagement. Particularly for the most-poor, under-compensation of time in research carries risks of serious harm. Cash payments may best support compensation of costs experienced; while highly valued, goods and medical benefits may be more appropriate as an ‘appreciation’ or incentive for participation. Community benefits were seen as important in supporting but not replacing individual-level benefits, and in building trust in researcher-community relations. Cash payments were seen to have higher risks of undue inducement, commercialising relationships and generating family conflicts than other benefits, particularly where payments are high. Researchers should consider and account for burdens families may experience when children are involved in research. Careful context-specific research planning and skilled and consistent communication about study benefits and payments are important, including in mitigating potential negative effects.

Between Scylla and Charybdis: charting an ethical course for research into financial incentives for living kidney donation

New approaches to address the kidney scarcity in the United States are urgently needed. The greatest potential source of kidneys is from living donors. Proposals to offer financial incentives to increase living kidney donation rates remain highly controversial. Despite repeated calls for a pilot study to assess the impact of financial compensation on living kidney donation rates, many fear that financial incentives will exploit vulnerable individuals and cast the field of transplantation in a negative public light, ultimately reducing donation rates. This paper provides an ethical justification for conducting a pilot study of a federally regulated approach to providing financial incentives to living kidney donors, with the goal of assessing donors' perceptions.

The ethics of HIV research with people who inject drugs in Africa: a desk review

Injecting drug use is a growing problem in Africa and a growing risk factor for contracting HIV in the region. It is imperative that HIV research includes injecting drug users so that they too are able to benefit from safe and effective behavioural interventions and biomedical HIV prevention and treatment products. This article relates a critical review of the findings of a desk review of previously published literature. The article examines injecting drug use in relation to HIV-related risk and research in Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania. The ethical challenges of including people who inject drugs in HIV research in Africa are also presented. The review found injecting drug use to be on the increase in all the countries reviewed. HIV-risk behaviour among people who inject drugs, such as needle-sharing and higher-risk sexual behaviour, was also found to be widespread. Furthermore, criminalisation of drug use and strict anti-drug laws are common in the countries reviewed, while harm-reduction programmes for people who inject drugs were found to be limited. The review identified a number of ethical challenges to the involvement of people who inject drugs in HIV research in Africa. This includes the illegal status and stigma surrounding injecting drug use, which may complicate participant recruitment, enrolment and retention. In addition, a lack of funding for supportive programmes to help injecting drug users may hinder the provision of appropriate standards of prevention and care and treatment for those who seroconvert.

Payment expectations for research participation among subjects who tell the truth, subjects who conceal information, and subjects who fabricate information

Multiple models guide researchers' payment practices but few studies have assessed subjects' expectations for payment. Payments in excess of subjects' expectations may result in undue inducement, while payments below these expectations may be associated with exploitation. Data on subjects' payment expectations will help inform practices to avoid undue inducement and exploitation. This study examined subjects' expectations for payment for common research procedures and explored the relationship between subjects' honesty and payment expectations. One-hundred subjects who participated in two or more studies in the last year reported the minimum payment they expect for completing study procedures. They were also asked about their use of deception while screening for studies. Subjects expected $20 on average to complete the least risky and least burdensome procedure. Subjects' expectations for payment consistently increased with greater procedure risks. Subjects who denied using deception to enroll in studies refused more procedures than subjects who reported using deception. Among subjects who used deception, the rate of procedure refusal increased with procedure risks, suggesting that these subjects have some risk aversion and may act to protect themselves from undue inducement. Although subjects expect greater payments for more risky procedures, ethical considerations for limiting undue inducement may prevent researchers from meeting subjects' expectations. Subjects who use deceptive practices appear to be more risk-tolerant than subjects who deny using deception; nonetheless, these deceptive subjects also exercise some risk aversion when they refuse higher-risk procedures. These subjects may be able to protect themselves from undue inducement by refusing procedures that exceed their risk tolerance.

Theoretical model of critical issues in informed consent in HIV vaccine trials

The informed consent process (ICP) for HIV vaccine trials poses unique challenges and would benefit from improvements to its historically based structure and format. Here, we propose a theoretical framework that provides a basis for systematically evaluating and addressing these challenges. The proposed framework follows a linear pathway, starting with the precondition of voluntariness, three main variables of valid decision-making (competency, provision of information and understanding) and then the consequential outcome of either refusal or consent to participate. The existing literature reveals that culturally appropriate provision of information and resultant understanding by the vaccine trial participant are among the most significant factors influencing the authenticity of valid decision-making, though they may be overridden by other considerations, such as individual altruism, mistrust, and HIV-related stigma. Community collaborations to foster bidirectional transmission of information and more culturally tailored consenting materials, therefore, represent a key opportunity to enhance the ICP. By providing a visual synopsis of the issues most critical to IC effectiveness in a categorical and relational manner, the framework provided here presents HIV vaccine researchers a tool by which the ICP can be more systematically evaluated and consequently improved.

Conducting Health Disparities Research with Criminal Justice Populations: Examining Research, Ethics, and Participation

This study explored the challenges of informed consent and understanding of the research process among Black and Latino men under community supervision (e.g., parole and/or probation). Between February and October 2012, we conducted cognitive face-to-face interviews using open-ended questions on the significant areas of research participation (i.e., the informed consent process, confidentiality, compensation, what is meant by human subject and clinical trials) among 259 men aged 35 to 67 under community supervision in Bronx, New York. Content analysis of the open-ended questions revealed limited knowledge concerning the understanding of research participation. The study participants appeared to generally understand concepts such as compensation after research participation and confidentiality. Participants demonstrated a lack of understanding of certain aspects of the research process-informed consent, human subject, Institutional Review Board, and clinical trials. These findings are informative to researchers conducting studies with criminal justice populations and Institutional Review Boards reviewing research studies.

Does incentivising pill-taking 'crowd out' risk-information processing? Evidence from a web-based experiment

The use of financial incentives for changing health-related behaviours raises concerns regarding their potential to undermine the processing of risks associated with incentivised behaviours. Uncertainty remains about the validity of such concerns. This web-based experiment assessed the impact of financial incentives on i) willingness to take a pill with side-effects; ii) the time spent viewing risk-information and iii) risk-information processing, assessed by perceived-risk of taking the pill and knowledge of its side-effects. It further assesses whether effects are moderated by limiting cognitive capacity. Two-hundred and seventy-five UK-based university staff and students were recruited online under the pretext of being screened for a fictitious drug-trial. Participants were randomised to the offer of different compensation levels for taking a fictitious pill (£0; £25; £1000) and the presence or absence of a cognitive load task (presentation of five digits for later recall). Willingness to take the pill increased with the offer of £1000 (84% vs. 67%; OR 3.66, CI 95% 1.27-10.6), but not with the offer of £25 (79% vs. 67%; OR 1.68, CI 95% 0.71-4.01). Risk-information processing was unaffected by the offer of incentives. The time spent viewing the risk-information was affected by the offer of incentives, an effect moderated by cognitive load: Without load, time increased with the value of incentives (£1000: M = 304.4sec vs. £0: M = 37.8sec, p < 0.001; £25: M = 66.6sec vs. £0: M = 37.8sec, p < 0.001). Under load, time decreased with the offer of incentives (£1000: M = 48.9sec vs. £0: M = 132.7sec, p < 0.001; £25: M = 60.9sec vs. £0: M = 132.7sec, p < 0.001), but did not differ between the two incentivised groups (p = 1.00). This study finds no evidence to suggest incentives "crowd out" risk-information processing. On the contrary, incentives appear to signal risk, an effect, however, which disappears under cognitive load. Although these findings require replication, they highlight the need to maximise cognitive capacity when presenting information about incentivised health-related behaviours.

Good intentions and dangerous assumptions: Research ethics committees and illicit drug use research

Illicit drug users are frequently identified as a ‘vulnerable population’ requiring ‘special protection’ and ‘additional safeguards’ in research. However, without specific guidance on how to enact these special protections and safeguards, research ethics committee (REC) members sometimes fall back on untested assumptions about the ethics of illicit drug use research. In light of growing calls for ‘evidence-based research ethics’, this commentary examines three common assumptions amongst REC members about what constitutes ethical research with drug users, and whether such assumptions are borne out by a growing body of empirical data. The assumptions that form the focus of this commentary are as follows: (i) drug users do not have the capacity to provide informed consent to research; (ii) it is ethically problematic to provide financial incentives to drug users to participate in research; and (iii) asking drug users about their experiences ‘re-traumatizes’ and ‘re-victimizes’ them.

What women who use drugs have to say about ethical research: findings of an exploratory qualitative study

Drug users are generally seen as a vulnerable population requiring special protection in research; however, to date there has been little empirical research into the ethics of research with illicit drug users. Moreover, the available research has tended to treat "drug users" as a homogeneous category, and has failed to consider potential gender differences in users' experiences. Drawing on focus groups with twenty-seven female drug users in Vancouver, Canada, this study examines women's experiences of research and what they see as ethical and respectful engagement. Many study participants talked about feeling dehumanized as a result of prior research participation. Women were critical of the assumption that drug users lack the capacity to take part in research, and affirmed the appropriateness of financial incentives. A variety of motivations for research participation were identified, including a desire for financial gain and altruistic concerns such as a desire to help others. These findings suggest that women drug users' views on ethical research differ from prevailing assumptions among institutional review boards about how research with such populations should proceed.

Motivational assessment of non-treatment buprenorphine research participation in heroin dependent individuals

BACKGROUND

Heroin abuse remains an important public health problem, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. Insight into this problem is gained from interviewing addicted individuals. However, we lack systematic data on factors that motivate heroin users to participate in non-treatment research that offers both financial incentives (compensation) and non-financial incentives (e.g., short-term medication).

AIM

To better understand the relative importance of several types of personal motivations to participate in non-treatment buprenorphine research, and to relate self-motivations to social, economic, demographic and drug use factors.

METHODS

Heroin dependent volunteers (N=235 total; 57 female and 178 male; 136 African American, 86 Caucasian, and 13 Other) applied for non-therapeutic buprenorphine research in an urban outpatient setting from 2004 to 2008. We conducted a semi-structured behavioral economic interview, after which participants ranked 11 possible motivations for research participation.

RESULTS

Although the study was repeatedly described as non-treatment research involving buprenorphine, participants often ranked some treatment-related motivations as important (wanting to reduce/stop heroin use, needing a medication to get stabilized/detoxify). Some motivations correlated with income, heroin use, and years since marketing of buprenorphine. Two dimensions emerged from principal component analysis of motivation rankings: (1) treatment motivation vs. greater immediate needs and (2) commitment to trying alternatives vs. a more accepting attitude toward traditional interventions. In summary, heroin addicts' self-motivations to engage in non-therapeutic research are complex--they value economic gain but not exclusively or primarily--and relate to variables such as socioeconomic factors and drug use.

Perceptions of reimbursement for clinical trial participation

A greater understanding of participant views regarding reimbursement will help investigators plan studies that have better potential for reaching target enrollment, maximize efficient recruitment, maintain scientific integrity, and enhance retention over time. As part of a clinical trial in the area of sexual health, healthy women's perceptions of reimbursement for research participation were investigated. Semi-structured, audio-recorded, qualitative interviews were conducted immediately upon women's completion of the clinical trial to enable a participant-driven understanding of perceptions about monetary reimbursement. Audio-recordings were transcribed and analyzed using framework analysis. Women (N = 30) had a mean age of 29.5 ± 5.7 years (range 22-45 years). Sixty-three percent of participants (n = 19) were non-Hispanic (white n = 13, black n = 4, and Asian n = 2), while the remaining were Hispanic (n = 11). Seventy-three percent (n = 22) reported previous participation in research. In general, women viewed reimbursement as a benefit to research participation, the amount of which should reflect time, the inconvenience to the research subject, and the potential for unknown risks in the short- and long-term. They believed reimbursement should take into account the degree of risk of the study, with investigations of experimental products offering greater reimbursement. Women believed that monetary reimbursement is unlikely to coerce an individual to volunteer for a study involving procedures or requirements that they found unacceptable. The results of this study can be used to provide guidance to those planning and evaluating reimbursement for research participation.

Accelerated hepatitis B vaccination schedule among drug users: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B vaccine provides a model for improving uptake and completion of multidose vaccinations in the drug-using community.

METHODS

The Drugs, AIDS, STDs, and Hepatitis (DASH) project conducted a randomized controlled trial among not-in-treatment current drug users in 2 urban neighborhoods. Neighborhoods were cluster-randomized to receive a standard behavioral intervention (which provided information on human immunodeficiency virus [HIV]) or an enhanced behavioral intervention (designed to increase acceptance of or adherence to the hepatitis B vaccination protocol). Participants within clusters were randomized to a standard vaccination schedule (vaccines at 0, 1, and 6 months) or an accelerated vaccination schedule (vaccines at 0, 1, and 2 months). The outcomes were completion of the 3-dose vaccine and seroprotection against hepatitis B virus (HBV).

RESULTS

Of participants with negative screening results for HIV and HBV, 77% accepted hepatitis B vaccination, and 75% of vaccinees received all 3 doses. Injection drug users (IDUs) on the accelerated schedule were significantly more likely to receive 3 doses (76%) than those on the standard schedule (66%; P = .04), although for drug users as a whole the corresponding adherence rates were 77% and 73%, respectively. No difference in adherence was observed between the behavioral intervention groups. Predictors of adherence were older age, African American race, stable housing, and alcohol use. Cumulative HBV seroprotection (≥10 mIU/mL) was gained within 12 months by 65% of those completing the schedule. Seroprotection at 6 months was greater for those on the accelerated schedule.

CONCLUSION

The accelerated vaccination schedule improves hepatitis B vaccination adherence among IDUs.

Enhancing HIV vaccine trial consent preparedness among street drug users

This research used open-ended and true-false questions to assess the preparedness of 96 ethnically diverse, economically and socially marginalized adult street drug users to consent to participate in HIV vaccine trials (HVT). Specific areas of consent vulnerability included misconceptions about: (1) the recuperative value and risk of vaccines in general; (2) the presence of the HIV virus within the vaccine and the possibility of contracting or transmitting HIV as a consequence of participation; (3) inclusion criteria and experimental blinds; and (4) distrust in the medical and research establishments. A brief HVT lesson administered to 30 participants was effective in correcting specific HVT knowledge misperceptions and increasing certain, but not all areas of HVT trust. Assessment of post-lesson responses to ethics-relevant questions provides information on respondents' attitudes toward AIDS safe behavior, research risks and benefits, monetary compensation, and willingness to participate. Implications for enhancing informed consent for HVT involving active drug users are discussed.

Informative inducement: study payment as a signal of risk

In research involving human subjects, large participation payments often are deemed undesirable because they may provide 'undue inducement' for potential participants to expose themselves to risk. However, although large incentives may encourage participation, they also may signal the riskiness of a study's procedures. In three experiments, we measured people's interest in participating in potentially risky research studies, and their perception of the risk associated with those studies, as functions of participation payment amounts. All experiments took place 2007-2008 with an on-line nationwide sample or a sample from a northeastern U.S. city. We tested whether people judge studies that offer higher participation payments to be riskier, and, if so, whether this increased perception of risk increases time and effort spent learning about the risks. We found that high participation payments increased willingness to participate, but, consistent with the idea that people infer riskiness from payment amount, high payments also increased perceived risk and time spent viewing risk information. Moreover, when a link between payment amount and risk level was made explicit in Experiment 3, the relationship between high payments and perceived risk strengthened. Research guidelines usually prohibit studies from offering participation incentives that compensate for risks, yet these experiments' results indicate that potential participants naturally assume that the magnitude of risks and incentives are related. This discrepancy between research guidelines and participants' assumptions about those guidelines has implications for informed consent in human subjects research.

Decisions to participate in research: views of underserved minority drug users with or at risk for HIV

Under-representation of minority populations, particularly African Americans, in HIV/AIDS research is problematic because African Americans bear a greater disease burden from HIV/AIDS. Studies of motivations for participating in research have emphasized factors affecting individuals' willingness to participate and barriers to participation, especially in regard to HIV vaccine research. Little is known about how underserved minority drug users perceive research and their decisions to participate. This study describes African American drug users' perceptions of research participation and their decisions to participate based on three kinds of hypothetical HIV/AIDS-related clinical studies. In-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted with 37 underserved, African American crack cocaine users, recruited from participants already enrolled in three different behavioral HIV prevention studies. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded for themes and sub-themes and analyzed using directed and conventional content analysis. Participants' decisions to take part in research often involved multiple motivations for participating. In addition, decisions to participate were characterized by four themes: a desire for information; skepticism and mistrust of research and researchers; perceptions of medical care and monitoring within a study; and participant control in decisions to participate or decline participation. Lack of adequate information and/or medical care and monitoring within a study were related to mistrust, while the provision of information was viewed by some individuals as a right and acknowledgement of the participant's contribution to the study. Participants perceived, rightly or wrongly, that medical monitoring would control some of the risks of a study. Participants also described situations of exerting control over decisions to enter or withdraw from a research study. Preliminary findings suggest that continuous communication and provision of information may enhance enrollment and adherence. Further exploration of decisions to participate in research will add to the understanding of this complex phenomenon and enhance the ability of individuals with HIV/AIDS to benefit from research.

Barriers and opportunities for recruitment for nonintervention studies on HIV risk: perspectives of street drug users

This study used focus-group discussions in response to a video vignette to examine attitudes toward recruitment for nonintervention research involving HIV testing. Participants were 100 ethnically diverse, economically disadvantaged urban drug users, who were recruited from New York City and Hartford, Connecticut in the spring and summer of 2006. Content analyses revealed themes including (1) fears of stigma and legal trouble balanced by trustworthiness of the recruiter; (2) fears of learning one's HIV status balanced by prospects for health benefits, and (3) the right to receive fair monetary compensation balanced by risks of coercion during periods of cravings. Limitations and implications for recruitment practices have been discussed here.

The influence of monetary compensation on relapse among addicted participants: empirical vs. anecdotal evidence

Although common, the use of cash incentives to compensate drug-addicted participants is controversial. This is particularly true given concerns that cash incentives might precipitate relapse, as is commonly believed. The following investigation examined whether cash versus money order compensation differentially influenced drug use among 34 non-treatment-seeking, cocaine-dependent individuals. Consistent with past evidence, results did not suggest that form of compensation was associated with likelihood of continued cocaine use or dollar amount of cocaine consumed after participation. Findings do not support commonly held concerns that cash incentives increase the risk of relapse following research participation.

Perceptions of risk in research participation among underserved minority drug users

Research with underserved minority drug users is essential to quality health care and prevention. Understanding how participants perceive risk in research is necessary to inform research regulators so that research protections are neither lax, exposing participants to harm, nor overly stringent, thereby denying access to beneficial research. Data from 37 semistructured interviews of underserved, African-American crack cocaine users, collected from February to May 2006 in a large, urban setting, were analyzed using content analysis. In three hypothetical studies, participants recognized risks as relative and articulated and evaluated specific risks. Research regulators may enhance the accuracy of risk assessment in research by incorporating the views of participants. Study implications and limitations are noted. Future research on risk perception in research participation is suggested.