National Practices Regarding Payment to Research Subjects for Participating in Pediatric Research

Weise, Kathryn L.; Smith, Martin L.; Maschke, Karen J.; Copeland, Hannah

doi:10.1542/peds.110.3.577

Cited by 45 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors have raised concerns that payments to underserved populations represents coercion, while others have suggested that payments may bias study results obtained or population recruited. [73][74][75][76][77][78][79] Accordingly, payments could potentially have a negative impact on trust, especially in vulnerable populations that might already be distrustful of research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recruiting Vulnerable Populations into Research: A Systematic Review of Recruitment Interventions

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Members of vulnerable populations are underrepresented in research studies.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and synthesize the evidence regarding interventions to enhance enrollment of vulnerable populations into health research studies.DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, the Web of Science database, personal sources, hand searching of related journals, and article references. Studies that contained data on recruitment interventions for vulnerable populations (minority, underserved, poor, rural, urban, or inner city) and for which the parent study (study for which recruitment was taking place) was an intervention study were included. A total of 2,648 study titles were screened and 48 articles met inclusion criteria, representing 56 parent studies. Two investigators extracted data from each study.RESULTS: African Americans were the most frequently targeted population (82% of the studies), while 46% targeted Hispanics/Latinos. Many studies assessed 2 or more interventions, including social marketing (82% of studies), community outreach (80%), health system recruitment (52%), and referrals (28%). The methodologic rigor varied substantially. Only 40 studies (71%) incorporated a control group and 21% used statistical analysis to compare interventions. Social marketing, health system, and referral recruitment were each found to be the most successful intervention about 35-45% of the studies in which they were attempted, while community outreach was the most successful intervention in only 2 of 16 studies (13%) in which it was employed. People contacted as a result of social marketing were no less likely to enroll than people contacted through other mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS:Further work with greater methodologic rigor is needed to identify evidence-based strategies for increasing minority enrollment in research studies; community outreach, as an isolated strategy, may be less successful than other strategies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recruiting Vulnerable Populations into Research: A Systematic Review of Recruitment Interventions

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In research involving children, the offer of payment is doubly problematic because often the person receiving payment is the parent or guardian when it is the child who is being exposed to the risk and burden of the study. 28 Some have argued that parents should not receive monetary payments for their child' s research participation, 29 whereas others believe that payment can reimburse research-related expenses and failure to compensate for these expenses may lead to the exclusion of poorer families. Payment can also compensate for time and inconvenience, act as a token of appreciation after children have participated, or act as an incentive to encourage participation.…”

Section: Payment For Research: Justified or Unethical?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Standard 1: Consent and Recruitment

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Consequently, some find carefully calculated payment to compensate parents for time and inconvenience acceptable and unlikely to contribute to significant distortions in parental judgment (53), while others believe that compensation to parents should be limited to reimbursement for expenses (51). The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the giving of gifts instead of money to children in a post-trial appreciation model (54), although many institutions do not appear to follow these recommendations (55). Giving money or non-cash gifts to children directly instead of to their parents is also difficult because children appreciate money and gifts differently depending on their age.…”

Section: Payment Of Children In Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payment of clinical research subjects

Grady¹

2005

Journal of Clinical Investigation

292

340

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Offering payment to clinical research subjects, in an effort to enhance recruitment by providing an incentive to take part or enabling subjects to participate without financial sacrifice, is a common yet uneven and contentious practice in the US. Concern exists regarding the potential for payment to unduly influence participation and thus obscure risks, impair judgment, or encourage misrepresentation. Heightening these concerns is the participation not only of adults but also of children in pediatric research trials. Thorough assessment of risks, careful eligibility screening, and attention to a participant's freedom to refuse all serve to reduce the possibility of compensation adversely affecting the individual and/or the study. Institutional review boards currently evaluate payment proposals with minimal guidance from federal regulations. Here, reasons for providing payment, payment models, ethical concerns, and areas for further research are examined.

show abstract

National Practices Regarding Payment to Research Subjects for Participating in Pediatric Research

Cited by 45 publications

References 5 publications

Recruiting Vulnerable Populations into Research: A Systematic Review of Recruitment Interventions

Recruiting Vulnerable Populations into Research: A Systematic Review of Recruitment Interventions

Standard 1: Consent and Recruitment

Payment of clinical research subjects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About