Who's doing the math? Are we really compensating research participants?

Monetary Incentives in Clinician Surveys: An Analysis and Systematic Review With a Focus on Establishing Best Practices

Surveys involving health care providers continue to be characterized by low and declining response rates (RRs), and researchers have utilized various strategies to increase survey participation. An important approach is to employ monetary incentives to improve survey response. Using a systematic review and analyses of 100 randomized comparisons (published in 48 papers) between monetary incentives and a non-incentive condition, this paper seeks to advance the understanding of best practices for using monetary incentives in clinician surveys. These analyses show even small incentives (≤$2) to be effective in improving clinician response relative to non-incentive subgroups, with diminished returns associated with serial incremental increases above that amount up to amounts greater than $25, at which point there is an appreciable improvement, supporting the use of higher incentives in this population. Cash and direct cash equivalents (e.g., cash cards and checks) produced greater odds of survey participation compared to vouchers, lotteries and charitable contributions, with lotteries and charities being the least effective forms of monetary incentive. Survey mode, timing and ethical considerations are also addressed. Noting the challenges associated with surveying clinicians, researchers must make every effort to improve access to this difficult-to-reach population by implementing appropriate incentive-based strategies designed to improve participation rates.

Incentives and payments in pragmatic clinical trials: Scientific, ethical, and policy considerations

Pragmatic clinical trials are increasingly used to generate knowledge about real-world clinical interventions. However, they involve some distinctive ethical and regulatory challenges. In this article, we examine a set of issues related to incentives and other payments to patients in pragmatic clinical trials. Although many of the ethical concerns related to incentives and payments in explanatory trials pertain to pragmatic clinical trials, the pragmatic features may introduce additional challenges. These include those related to the risk of incentives and payments undermining the scientific validity and social value of pragmatic clinical trials, the sources of data used in pragmatic clinical trials, and when the pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under waivers of consent. Based on our examination of these matters, we offer some preliminary recommendations regarding incentives and payments in pragmatic clinical trials, recognizing that additional data and experiences are needed to refine them.

Factors Associated With Payments to Research Participants: A Review of Sociobehavioral Studies at a Large Southern California Research University

Along with a dearth of regulatory guidance, little empirical research has examined factors related to participant payment in research. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 100 institutional review board (IRB)-approved sociobehavioral human subjects research protocols at a large research university in Southern California. The proportion of studies that paid participants differed significantly by type of research (p < .001) and study population (p = .009). The average payment amount also differed significantly by study population (p < .001) and type of participation (in-person vs. remote; p < .001). In addition, studies that required more visits (p < .001) and more time (p = .011) paid significantly more than studies with fewer and shorter visits, respectively. These findings provide data to help inform future ethical payment practices.

A Malawi guideline for research study participant remuneration

Background: Research participant remuneration has been variable and inconsistent world-wide for many years owing to uncertainty regarding best practice and a lack of written guidelines for investigators and research ethics committees.  Recent recommendations are that researchers and regulators should develop regionally appropriate written guidelines to define reasonable remuneration based on expense reimbursement, compensation for time and burden associated with participation.   Incentives to motivate participation are acceptable in specific circumstances. Methods: We wished to develop regionally informed, precise and applicable guidelines in Malawi that might also be generally useful for African researchers and review committees.  We therefore reviewed the current literature and developed widely applicable and specific remuneration tables using acceptable and evidence-based payment rationales. Results: There were good international guidelines and limited published regional guidelines.  There were published examples of best practice and sufficient material to suggest a structured remuneration table.  The rationale and method for the table were discussed at an inter-disciplinary workshop resulting in a reimbursement and compensation model with fixed rates.  Payment is recommended pro rata and equally across a study. Conclusions: Transparent, fair remuneration of research participants is recommended by researchers and regulators in Malawi.  The means to achieve this are now presented in the Malawi research participant remuneration table.

A Malawi guideline for research study participant remuneration

Background: Research participant remuneration has been variable and inconsistent world-wide for many years owing to uncertainty regarding best practice and a lack of written guidelines for investigators and research ethics committees.  Recent recommendations are that researchers and regulators should develop regionally appropriate written guidelines to define reasonable remuneration based on expense reimbursement, compensation for time and burden associated with participation.   Incentives to motivate participation are acceptable in specific circumstances.

Methods: We wished to develop regionally informed, precise and applicable guidelines in Malawi that might also be generally useful for African researchers and review committees.  We therefore reviewed the current literature and developed widely applicable and specific remuneration tables using acceptable and evidence-based payment rationales.

Results: There were good international guidelines and limited published regional guidelines.  There were published examples of best practice and sufficient material to suggest a structured remuneration table.  The rationale and method for the table were discussed at an inter-disciplinary workshop resulting in a reimbursement and compensation model with fixed rates.  Payment is recommended pro rata and equally across a study.

Conclusions: Transparent, fair remuneration of research participants is recommended by researchers and regulators in Malawi.  The means to achieve this are now presented in the Malawi research participant remuneration table.

Commonly performed procedures in clinical research: a benchmark for payment

Slow or insufficient enrollment in clinical research and a high demand for research participants raises questions about the need for and use of incentives to participate, including payment. Much of the available literature on payment to research participants focuses on ethical concerns, and rarely addresses guidelines, benchmarks, or formulas to assist investigators to assign or evaluate appropriate payment for individuals who take part in clinical research trials and procedures. Using four years of data collected about the inconvenience units assigned by intramural investigators to selected clinical research procedures conducted at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center, this study provides payment benchmarks for commonly performed procedures. Results were obtained from data collected on 36,273 incidents of payment made for procedures to research participants from August 2004 to August 2008. Analysis of the inconvenience units value assigned to specific procedures suggests that despite a wide distribution and frequent outliers, a convergence in practice around the center of distribution for most procedures does exist. As one of the first published studies reporting data reflecting payment amount for specific clinical research procedures, these data can guide investigators and institutional review boards as they establish and review an appropriate amount of payment to offer research participants. Our data may be useful in promoting payment standards for procedures, thereby complementing proposals or guidelines that advise payment calculations according to time and procedures.

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.