Payment to healthy volunteers in clinical research: the research subject's perspective

"When selling anything to an audience, visible publicity is key:" experiences, barriers, and enablers to participate in a COVID-19 study in Malawi

BACKGROUND

Many studies in infectious diseases struggle to recruit participants. The SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission dynamics, and household impact in Malawi (SCATHIM) study reported a refusal rate of 57.2%. Adequate publicity can lead to more people participating in studies. This study explored the reasons for participating in the SCATHIM study.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative study informed by the theory of reasoned action was conducted in Blantyre between January 2022 and March 2022 to assess factors that influence participation in a COVID-19 study among 10 index cases, 10 caregivers, 10 study decliners, and 5 research staff. The data were collected via in-depth interview guides, audio recorded, transcribed, managed via NVIVO and analysed via a thematic approach.

RESULTS

The factors that motivated participation in the study included one's knowledge of COVID-19; potential access to medical services, including free COVID-19 tests for members of the household; financial reimbursements; and the ability to contribute scientific knowledge. The barriers to participation included minimal publicity of the study amidst a novel condition, perceived stigma and discrimination, perceived invasion of privacy, discomfort with the testing procedures, and suboptimal financial reimbursements.

CONCLUSION

Effective publicity and outreach strategies have the potential to decrease refusal rates in study participation, especially if a condition is novel. Studies on infectious diseases should address stigma and discrimination to promote participation and ensure participant safety.

Discovery and development of COVID-19 vaccine from laboratory to clinic

The world has recently experienced one of the biggest and most severe public health disasters with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) which is one of the most widespread and powerful infections affecting human lungs. Current figures show that the epidemic had reached 216 nations, where it had killed about 6,438,926 individuals and infected 590,405,710. WHO proclaimed the outbreak of the Ebola virus disease (EVD), in 2014 that killed hundreds of people in West Africa. The development of vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 becomes more difficult due to the viral mutation in its non-structural proteins (NSPs) especially NSP2 and NSP3, S protein, and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). Continuous monitoring of SARS-CoV-2, dynamics of the genomic sequence, and spike protein mutations are very important for the successful development of vaccines with good efficacy. Hence, the vaccine development for SARS-CoV-2 faces specific challenges starting from viral mutation. The requirement of long-term immunity development, safety, efficacy, stability, vaccine allocation, distribution, and finally, its cost is discussed in detail. Currently, 169 vaccines are in the clinical development stage, while 198 vaccines are in the preclinical development stage. The majority of these vaccines belong to the Ps-Protein subunit type which has 54, and the minor BacAg-SPV (Bacterial antigen-spore expression vector) type, at least 1 vaccination. The use of computational methods and models for vaccine development has revolutionized the traditional methods of vaccine development. Further, this updated review highlights the upcoming vaccine development strategies in response to the current pandemic and post-pandemic era, in the field of vaccine development.

The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants

In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of-more or less well-justified-ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have a prima facie moral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical "spine" of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical "skeleton" of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits).

A Study on the Characteristics of Healthy Volunteers who Participate in Phase I Clinical Trials in Korea

The phase I trial is the first step in administering a drug to humans, but it has no therapeutic purpose. Under the absence of therapeutic purpose, healthy volunteers demonstrated different motivations, unlike the actual patients participating in trials. There were many reported motivations, such as financial motivation, contributing to the health science, accessing ancillary health care benefits, scientific interest or interest in the goals of the study, meeting people, and general curiosity. The aim of this study was to identify the motivation and characteristics of healthy volunteers participating in phase I trials in the Republic of Korea. We gave surveys to 121 healthy volunteers to study their demographic characteristics and the reasons of participation. We identified whether the decision to participate in the research was influenced by demographic factors and whether the perception and attitudes toward the research were influenced by the characteristics of the healthy volunteers. After completion of the first survey, 12 healthy volunteers who had participated in a phase I clinical trial were selected to answer the second interview. According to our survey, most healthy volunteers were unmarried men and economically dependent. Most of them participated in the study because of financial reward. The most important factor to measure financial reward was the research period. Also, 43% of the volunteers were university students, 42% answered "university graduation" and 55% were residing in family-owned houses. Many healthy volunteers were found to be living in family homes and to have a student status or lack of economic independence. Results of the survey showed that 64% of respondents indicated having more than one clinical trial participation. In-depth interviews showed that healthy volunteers had diverse motivation to participate in research and that healthy volunteer perceive the clinical trial positively. The main motivation for healthy volunteers' participation in research was "financial reward." Healthy volunteers also considered research schedules, processes, and safety, and had a positive perception of clinical trials, but they thought that the public has a negative perception.

Towards a fair and transparent research participant compensation and reimbursement framework in Vietnam

Background

Providing compensation for participants in clinical research is well established and while international guidelines exist, defining a context-specific and fair compensation for participants in low-resource settings is challenging due to ethical concerns and the lack of practical, national compensation and reimbursement frameworks.

Methods

We reviewed Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) internal reimbursement documentation over a 10-y period and conducted a scoping literature review to expand our knowledge of compensation and reimbursement practices including ethical concerns. We developed a preliminary reimbursement framework that was presented to community advisory boards (CAB) and clinical investigators to assess its applicability, fairness and transparency.

Results

The main topics discussed at the workshops centered on fairness and whether the reimbursements could be perceived as financial incentives. Other decisive factors in the decision-making process were altruism and the loss of caregivers’ earnings. Investigators raised the issue of additional burdens, whereas the CAB members were focused on non-monetary elements such as the healthcare quality the patients would receive. All elements discussed were reviewed and, where possible, incorporated into the final framework.

Conclusion

Our new reimbursement framework provides a consistent, fair and transparent decision-making process and will be implemented across all future OUCRU clinical research in Vietnam.

Perspective: Design and Conduct of Human Nutrition Randomized Controlled Trials

In the field of human nutrition, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for establishing causal relations between exposure to nutrients, foods, or dietary patterns and prespecified outcome measures, such as body composition, biomarkers, or event rates. Evidence-based dietary guidance is frequently derived from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these RCTs. Each decision made during the design and conduct of human nutrition RCTs will affect the utility and generalizability of the study results. Within the context of limited resources, the goal is to maximize the generalizability of the findings while producing the highest quality data and maintaining the highest levels of ethics and scientific integrity. The aim of this document is to discuss critical aspects of conducting human nutrition RCTs, including considerations for study design (parallel, crossover, factorial, cluster), institutional ethics approval (institutional review boards), recruitment and screening, intervention implementation, adherence and retention assessment, and statistical analyses considerations. Additional topics include distinguishing between efficacy and effectiveness, defining the research question(s), monitoring biomarker and outcome measures, and collecting and archiving data. Addressed are specific aspects of planning and conducting human nutrition RCTs, including types of interventions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, participant burden, randomization and blinding, trial initiation and monitoring, and the analysis plan.

The motivations, barriers, and sociodemographic characteristics of healthy Chinese volunteers in phase I research

PURPOSE

To describe the motivations, barriers, and sociodemographic characteristics of healthy Chinese volunteers in phase I research and to demonstrate the factors influencing their willingness to participate in subsequent trials.

METHODS

Healthy subjects who participated in seven phase I trials at two centres were invited to participate in the cross-sectional survey at discharge by anonymously and voluntarily completing the self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

From 442 subjects asked to complete the questionnaire, a response rate of 94.8% (419) was obtained, and 72.8% of the respondents had participated in a mean of 2.0 ± 1.3 previous studies. Over 90% of the subjects indicated that the main motivations to participate trials were to help more people, to contribute to scientific research, and to obtain money. The top 5 barriers were time inconvenience, advertisement sources, potential risks associated with the drug, privacy, and the route of drug administration. Nearly half (49.6%) of the subjects were willing to participate in the next trial. The factors impacting the willingness of the subjects to participate in subsequent trials were gender, screening frequency, enrolment frequency, level of understanding of the research, two motivating factors (to make money and receive a free check-up), and ten barriers (e.g. risk, distance, living conditions, and trust).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of healthy Chinese subjects were young, were less well educated, had low income levels, and had poor medical insurance coverage. Given the multiple sources of motivation and complex barriers to trial participation, investigators and recruitment staff should consider ethics aspects to guarantee volunteer safety and well-being.

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.

When money talks: Judging risk and coercion in high-paying clinical trials

Millions of volunteers take part in clinical trials every year. This is unsurprising, given that clinical trials are often much more lucrative than other types of unskilled work. When clinical trials offer very high pay, however, some people consider them repugnant. To understand why, we asked 1,428 respondents to evaluate a hypothetical medical trial for a new Ebola vaccine offering three different payment amounts. Some respondents (27%) used very high pay (£10,000) as a cue to infer the potential risks the clinical trial posed. These respondents were also concerned that offering £10,000 was coercive— simply too profitable to pass up. Both perceived risk and coercion in high-paying clinical trials shape how people evaluate these trials. This result was robust within and between respondents. The link between risk and repugnance may generalize to other markets in which parties are partially remunerated for the risk they take and contributes to a more complete understanding of why some market transactions appear repugnant.

Role of Incentives in Long-term Nutritional and Growth Studies in Children

Available published advice on use of incentives is limited and generally refers to short-term studies without longer follow-up, predominantly conducted in developed countries. We aim to summarize published information related to the use of incentives in long-term nutrition studies involving infants, children, and adolescents and the views of researchers in the field, to provide guidance on acceptable incentives. We conducted a literature review and a short online survey of researchers regarding their opinions on the use of incentives in paediatric long-term (follow-up) clinical studies. Responses from 38 researchers from 14 different countries indicated that 41% had used incentives to increase participation and 29% to 73%, depending on child's age and type of procedure, thought incentives may be used to increase compliance with follow-up visits. A small number of respondents thought incentives would not be approved by national ethics boards. Based on the literature review and the survey results, and European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition working group concluded that incentives for children and adolescents up to the value of 30 Euros, based on average EU income levels, may be offered as cash, vouchers, or age-appropriate gifts or toys, in addition to reimbursing expenses. Additional incentives may be offered if a study includes more burdening procedures, techniques that may appear frightening for younger children, or requires sustained participation (eg, dietary diaries or activity monitoring). There was agreement that it is preferable to give toys or gifts rather than money to younger children.

To report or not to report: Exploring healthy volunteers' rationales for disclosing adverse events in Phase I drug trials

BACKGROUND

Phase I trials test the safety and tolerability of investigational drugs and often use healthy volunteers as research participants. Adverse events (AEs) are collected in part through participants' self-reports of any symptoms they experience during the trial. In some cases, experiencing AEs can result in trial participation being terminated. Because of the economic incentives underlying their motivation to participate, there is concern that healthy volunteers routinely fail to report AEs and thereby jeopardize the validity of the trial results.

METHODS

We interviewed 131 U.S. healthy volunteers about their experiences with AEs, including their rationales for reporting or failing to report symptoms.

RESULTS

We found that participants have three primary rationales for their AE reporting behavior: economic, health-oriented, and data integrity. Participants often make decisions about whether to report AEs on a case-by-case basis, evaluating what effects reporting or not reporting might have on the compensation they receive from the trial, the risk to their health, and the results of the particular clinical trial. Participants' interpretations of clinic policies, staff behaviors, and personal or vicarious experiences with reporting AEs also shape reporting decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that participants' reporting behavior is more complex than previous portraits of healthy volunteers have suggested. Rather than finding participants who were so focused on the financial compensation that they were willing to subvert trial results, our study indicates that participants are willing in most cases to forgo their full compensation if they believe not reporting their symptoms jeopardizes their own safety or the validity of the research.

Phase 1 healthy volunteer willingness to participate and enrollment preferences

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Healthy volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials contribute to the development of safe drugs and other biologics and accept risks and burdens without anticipated health benefits from participation. Although emerging data have shown that healthy volunteers are influenced by risk, some still worry that financial incentives lead them to take on unreasonable risk. Yet little is known about healthy volunteers' preferences and how they make choices about enrolling in research studies.

METHODS

We surveyed 654 healthy volunteers at the end of their participation in a phase 1 Pfizer trial in the United States, Belgium, and Singapore to examine their reported willingness to enroll in studies of different types, with various procedures, and with possible side-effects.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents were willing to join many kinds of studies, but fewer were willing to participate in first-in-human vaccine studies or studies of psychiatric drugs than in other study types. With regard to procedures, a substantial proportion were unwilling to participate in studies that involved invasive procedures, such as a lumbar puncture (45.4%) and bone marrow biopsy (42.3%), but willing to participate in studies with less invasive procedures such as a computed tomography scan of the heart (86.8%), magnetic resonance imaging (87.4%), and skin allergy testing (86.8%). Although there was some variation by gender and region, the majority were willing to participate in studies with side-effects like pain (80%) or nausea and vomiting (64%), but only a minority were willing to join if the research drug would result in their having a one in a million chance of death (34.4%), a small chance of kidney damage (16.7%), or influence how their mind works (23.2%; Figure 4).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that healthy volunteers are willing to participate in a wide range of types of phase 1 clinical trials, and express preferences for low risk and familiar studies and study procedures, preferences which are partially affected by offers of payment.

Healthy individuals' perspectives on clinical research protocols and influences on enrollment decisions

BACKGROUND

Understanding the perspectives of healthy individuals is important ethically and for the advancement of science. We assessed perceptions of risk associated with research procedures, comparing views of healthy individuals with and without experience in clinical research, and the respondents' reported willingness to volunteer.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews and written surveys were conducted. Study participants were healthy individuals, half of whom were currently enrolled in clinical research and half of whom had no prior experience in clinical research. Participants were queried regarding seven "minimal risk" or "greater than minimal risk" protocol vignettes with procedures of three types: routine diagnostic tests, more burdensome (i.e., more effort or potential harm) diagnostic tests, and pharmacologic interventions. Views of influences on enrollment decisions were also assessed.

RESULTS

Most healthy individuals indicated that protocols with more burdensome or pharmacologic interventions were very risky (59%, 58%), as opposed to routine diagnostic test procedures (32%). Respondents' willingness to enroll in protocols varied by type of protocol (p value < .001) and was inversely correlated with risk assessments (regression coefficients from GEE = -0.4; -0.5; -0.7). The odds of healthy individuals with research experience expressing strong willingness to enroll in the depicted protocols were twice the odds of healthy individuals without research experience expressing the same level of willingness (OR = 2.0 95% CI: [1.1, 3.9]). Respondents did not assign risk categories as institutional review boards (IRBs) would, as indicated by low agreement (26%) between respondent and expert opinion on minimal risk protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceptions of procedure risk appear to influence healthy individuals' willingness to enroll in protocols. Participants with experience in clinical research were far more likely to express willingness to enroll, a finding with important scientific and ethical implications. The lack of alignment between healthy individuals' views of protocol risk and IRB categorization warrants further study.

Paying patient and caregiver research participants: putting theory into practice

AIM

To review and discuss the ethical and practical considerations about paying patient and caregiver participants in nursing research and, based on this review, to develop a set of guiding principles about payment of participants.

BACKGROUND

To increase recruitment and retention, it is becoming increasingly common in nursing research to provide some form of payment to participants. The risk is that the promise of a payment may influence a patient or caregiver's decision to participate in research. However, research ethics protocols seldom provide explicit guidance about paying participants. Even where formal policies or fee schedules exist, there is little consistency in determining how payments should be calculated or administered. This has resulted in highly variable payment practices between locations, disciplines and institutions.

DESIGN

Discussion paper.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, MEDLINE with Full Text, CINAHL and Health Source (Nursing/Academic Edition) were searched for terms related to paying research participants published between 2000 - August 2016.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurse researchers must comply with international, national and institutional ethical standards. Important ethical and practical considerations should guide the decision-making process about whether to pay research participants and how to determine the nature or value of the payment. Guiding principles can support researchers by highlighting key factors that may direct their decision-making in this regard.

CONCLUSION

A deeper understanding of the fundamental ethical and practical considerations is needed to support researchers in their deliberations about paying participants in nursing research.

Ethical considerations and challenges in first-in-human research

First-in-human (FIH) research is a translational process to move a new potential therapy from bench to bedside. Major ethical challenges of an FIH trial arise because of the indeterminate nature of the risks involved and the controversial risk-benefit justification. Severe adverse events and death of subjects who participated in FIH research in the past have led to an increased attention on ethical considerations in the design and conduct of such research. Furthermore, novel therapies in the current decade, such as molecular-targeted, gene transfer, and pluripotent stem cells therapies, have led to numerous emerging ethical challenges or different ethical assessment and justification frameworks for FIH research. This article presents, discusses, and interlinks ethical considerations and challenges in FIH research through a review of related ethical principles and their application to each ethical issue with given examples. Possible solutions to address each ethical challenge are presented. The scope of this article focuses on 4 major ethical issues in FIH research: risk-benefit assessment and justification for the conduct of research, selection of a suitable target population, informed consent, and conflict of interest.

Incentives to participate in clinical trials: practical and ethical considerations

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials often offer incentives to encourage individuals to enroll and to enhance follow-up. The scope and nature of incentives used in emergency department (ED)-based trials are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to characterize the quantity and quality of incentives and other forms of compensation used in clinical trials of human subjects recruited in US EDs. A secondary goal is to provide an historical and ethical analysis of the use of incentives in clinical trials.

METHODS

We reviewed English-language randomized clinical trials conducted in US EDs from 2009 to 2013. Full text of the studies was reviewed to identify whether incentives were used, their value, and timing. Funding source was noted as well. Data are presented with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 1151 articles identified, 76 (6.6%) fit criteria for review. Of these, 7 (9.2%) provided incentive payments. A recently published eighth trial was included as well. The total cash value of incentives offered ranged from $10 to $195. Four studies offered payment at enrollment only. Incentives included cash, debit cards, and gift cards.

CONCLUSION

The use of financial incentives in ED-based trials is uncommon. Studies that use incentives are generally extramurally funded, usually by a federal agency, and include waves of follow-up that continue after discharge from the ED. Payment size is modest. Incentives may improve recruitment and retention in ED-based trials, but authoritative data are lacking. Investigators need to take care to avoid incentives that may be coercive or unduly influence research participants.

A privacy preserving protocol for tracking participants in phase I clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Some phase 1 clinical trials offer strong financial incentives for healthy individuals to participate in their studies. There is evidence that some individuals enroll in multiple trials concurrently. This creates safety risks and introduces data quality problems into the trials. Our objective was to construct a privacy preserving protocol to track phase 1 participants to detect concurrent enrollment.

DESIGN

A protocol using secure probabilistic querying against a database of trial participants that allows for screening during telephone interviews and on-site enrollment was developed. The match variables consisted of demographic information.

MEASUREMENT

The accuracy (sensitivity, precision, and negative predictive value) of the matching and its computational performance in seconds were measured under simulated environments. Accuracy was also compared to non-secure matching methods.

RESULTS

The protocol performance scales linearly with the database size. At the largest database size of 20,000 participants, a query takes under 20s on a 64 cores machine. Sensitivity, precision, and negative predictive value of the queries were consistently at or above 0.9, and were very similar to non-secure versions of the protocol.

CONCLUSION

The protocol provides a reasonable solution to the concurrent enrollment problems in phase 1 clinical trials, and is able to ensure that personal information about participants is kept secure.

Bioethical Issues in Providing Financial Incentives to Research Participants

Offering research subjects financial incentives for their participation is a common practice that boosts recruitment but also raises ethical concerns, such as undue inducement, exploitation, and biased enrollment. This article reviews the arguments for providing participants with financial incentives, ethical concerns about payment, and approaches to establishing appropriate compensation levels. It also makes recommendations for investigators, institutions, and oversight committees.

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.

Strategy for recruitment and factors associated with motivation and satisfaction in a randomized trial with 210 healthy volunteers without financial compensation

Background

The aim was to describe a strategy for recruitment of healthy volunteers (HV) to a randomized trial that assessed the efficacy of different telephone techniques to assist HV in performing cardiac massage for vital emergency. Participation in the randomized trial was not financially compensated, however HV were offered emergency first-aid training. We also studied factors associated with HV motivation and satisfaction regarding participation in the trial.

Methods

Strategy for recruitment of 210 HV aged 18 to 60 years was based on: (1) the updated records of all telephone number since January 2000 of HV registered in the Rouen Clinical Investigation Centre HV database, (2) a communication campaign for the general public focussing on posters and media advertisements. Data on the recruitment, socio-demographics, motivation and satisfaction of the 210 HV were collected by anonymous self-administered questionnaire.

Results

Of the 210 HV included, 63.3% (n = 133) were recruited from the HV database and 36.7% (n = 77) by the communication campaign. On the one hand, the HV database enabled screening of 1315 HV, 54.8% (n = 721) of whom were reached by phone, 55.2% (n = 398) of these latter accepted to participate in the study and 10.1% of the initial screening (n = 133) were finally included. One the other hand, for the 77 HV not recruited from the HV database, word-of-mouth (56.1%) was the main means of recruitment. The male/female ratio of the 210 HV was 0.5 and mean age 43.5 years (Standard Deviation = 12.4). The main motivations given for participating in the trial were to support research (87.6%) and receive emergency first-aid training (85.7%). Overall satisfaction with the welcome process was significantly higher for older HV (46–60 years) (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 3.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.48-7.99), and for HV in management jobs (AOR: 4.26; 95% CI: 1.22-14.87). Satisfaction with protocol management was higher for women (AOR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.18-4.60) and for older HV (46–60 years) (AOR: 4.76; 95% CI: 1.97-11.52).

Conclusions

Recruitment of non-compensated HV required broad screening with a primary HV database alongside word-of-mouth communication which seemed more efficient than media advertising. To enhance HV recruitment to randomized trials without financial compensation it seems crucial to provide them not only with a direct interest but also to ensure their satisfaction.

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.

Research participation by low-income and racial/ethnic minority groups: how payment may change the balance

Minorities are underenrolled in clinical research trials, and one-third of trials are underenrolled overall. The role of payment has not been studied at the national level as an explanation for enrollment patterns. Our objective was to examine the distribution of self-reported previous research participation across different sociodemographic groups; to assess the public's perception of fair payment for a low-risk medicine trial and the association between requested payment and sociodemographic characteristics; to estimate the amount of payment for a medication trial to achieve proportional representation of minorities and different socioeconomic groups. This was a cross-sectional study with nationally representative data collected in 2011 by the C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health. To determine the relationship between perceived fair payment and individual-level characteristics, we used multivariable linear regression. With 60% participation rate, in a sample of 2,150 respondents 11% (n = 221) of the sample had previously participated in medical research. Requested payment differed significantly by racial/ethnic group with Hispanics requesting more payment than non-Hispanic whites (0.37 [95%CI 0.02, 0.72]) In contrast to payment at $49, $149, and $249, payment at $349 yielded proportional representation of racial/ethnic minority groups. Hispanics requested higher payment for research participation, suggesting a possible explanation for their underenrollment.

Payment of research subjects for more than minimal risk trials is unethical

This article explores the ethics of paying research participants for studies involving more than minimal risk using arguments grounded in morality, logic and pragmatism, as well as patient responses from a focused qualitative study. The authors argue that payment of research participants is ethically unacceptable. Balanced against the probability of harmful risks, guaranteed payment to participants represents excessive and undue influence and leads to commodification of human health. Patients range in their opinions on whether payment for research participation is ethical, considering issues of justice and nonmaleficence. From basic assumptions about the correlation between risks, financial need and willingness to participate in studies, the authors demonstrate that payments lead to unjustly influencing patients, especially the financially needy to participate in potentially harmful studies. Previous commentators have offered methods to regulate payment to participants, but these models do not seem feasible or ethically sound.

Why do we pay? A national survey of investigators and IRB chairpersons

The principle that payment to participants should not be undue or coercive is the consensus of international and national guidelines and ethical debates; however, what this means in practice is unclear. This study determined the attitudes and practices of IRB chairpersons and investigators regarding participant payment. One thousand six hundred investigators and 1900 IRB chairpersons received an invitation to participate in a web-based survey. Four hundred and fifty-five investigators (28.3%) and 395 IRB chairpersons (18.6%) responded. The survey was designed to gather considerations that govern payment determination and practical application of these considerations in hypothetical case studies. The survey asked best answer, multiple choice, and open text questions. Short hypothetical case scenarios where presented, and participants were asked to rate factors in the study that might impact payment and then determine their recommended payment. A predictive model was developed for each case to determine factors which affected payment. Although compensation was the primary reason given to justify payment by both investigators and IRB chairpersons, the cases suggested that, in practice, payment is often guided by incentive, as shown by the impact of anticipated difficulty recruiting, inconvenience, and risk in determining payment. Payment models varied by type of study. Ranges for recommended payments by both groups for different types of procedures and studies are presented.