Toward equitable payment for inclusive participation

Moore, Justin Xavier; Anderson, Lois D.; Li, Cynthia; Benson, Reginald D.; Rychtarikova, Alejandra Garcia; Williamson, Lillie D.; Wolf, Leslie E.; Whisenant, Ebony B; Murphy, Erin; Jones, Samantha R.

doi:10.1017/cts.2023.5

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We saw one example that stated goals of defraying expenses and compensating participants for time and effort, yet offered an amount that could not achieve those goals in the location. Additional data could help assess the fairness of payments and lead to more inclusive practices [ 20 ]. The Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) and others have set forth the different payment types we used here to guide our analysis [ 4 , 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given our interest in vulnerable populations and the expressed concerns about research payments to educationally and economically disadvantaged individuals being potentially coercive [ 2 , 13 , 20 ] and payments being used to purchase drugs or alcohol [ 11 , 12 ], we sampled studies on HIV/AIDs and studies funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [ 21 , 22 ]. We chose to sample HIV/AIDS studies because, in the United States, people at risk for or living with HIV/AIDS are disproportionately members of historically marginalized groups and economically disadvantaged [ 23 , 24 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the perceived importance of participant payment to successful completion of research and the ethical debate about payments, empirical data regarding research participant payments is limited [ 1 , 2 , 7 , 17 – 19 ]. We previously conducted a content analysis of published articles in four journals to assess how often and how researchers disclose payment information when reporting research results [ 20 ]. We found that few (<6%) of the articles included information about payment types or structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We found that few (<6%) of the articles included information about payment types or structure. This lack of information limits our understanding of the effectiveness of payments in terms of achieving scientific goals with respect to recruitment, retention, and inclusion [ 20 ]. Given payment information must be included in consent forms and likely is included in research protocols, to fill in this gap, we conducted a content analysis of consent forms and protocols available on clinicaltrials.gov.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A taxing problem: The impacts of research payment practices on participants and inclusive research

Wolf,

Kench,

Ledford

2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical data regarding payments to participants in research is limited. This lack of information constrains our understanding of the effectiveness of payments to achieve scientific goals with respect to recruitment, retention, and inclusion. We conducted a content analysis of consent forms and protocols available on clinicaltrials.gov to determine what information researchers provide regarding payment. We extracted data from HIV (n = 101) and NIMH-funded studies (n = 65) listed on clinicaltrials.gov that had publicly posted a consent form. Using a manifest content analysis approach, we then coded the language regarding payment from the consent document and, where available, protocol for purpose and method of the payment. Although not part of our original planned analysis, the tax-related information that emerged from our content analysis of the consent form language provided additional insights into researcher payment practices. Accordingly, we also recorded whether the payment section mentioned social security numbers (or other tax identification number) in connection with payments and whether it made any statements regarding the Internal Revenue Service or the tax status of payments. We found studies commonly offered payment, but did not distinguish between the purposes for which payment may be offered (i.e., compensation, reimbursement, incentive, or appreciation). We also found studies that excluded some participants from receiving payment or treated them differently from other participants in the study. Differential treatment was typically linked to US tax laws and other legal requirements. A number of US studies also discussed the need to collect Social Security numbers and income reporting based on US tax laws. Collectively, these practices disadvantage some participants and may interfere with efforts to conduct more inclusive research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A taxing problem: The impacts of research payment practices on participants and inclusive research

Wolf,

Kench,

Ledford

2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Human-computer interactions with farm animals—enhancing welfare through precision livestock farming and artificial intelligence

Neethirajan,

Scott,

Mancini

et al. 2024

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While user-centered design approaches stemming from the human-computer interaction (HCI) field have notably improved the welfare of companion, service, and zoo animals, their application in farm animal settings remains limited. This shortfall has catalyzed the emergence of animal-computer interaction (ACI), a discipline extending technology’s reach to a multispecies user base involving both animals and humans. Despite significant strides in other sectors, the adaptation of HCI and ACI (collectively HACI) to farm animal welfare—particularly for dairy cows, swine, and poultry—lags behind. Our paper explores the potential of HACI within precision livestock farming (PLF) and artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance individual animal welfare and address the unique challenges within these settings. It underscores the necessity of transitioning from productivity-focused to animal-centered farming methods, advocating for a paradigm shift that emphasizes welfare as integral to sustainable farming practices. Emphasizing the ‘One Welfare’ approach, this discussion highlights how integrating animal-centered technologies not only benefits farm animal health, productivity, and overall well-being but also aligns with broader societal, environmental, and economic benefits, considering the pressures farmers face. This perspective is based on insights from a one-day workshop held on June 24, 2024, which focused on advancing HACI technologies for farm animal welfare.

show abstract

Toward equitable payment for inclusive participation

Cited by 2 publications

References 16 publications

A taxing problem: The impacts of research payment practices on participants and inclusive research

A taxing problem: The impacts of research payment practices on participants and inclusive research

Human-computer interactions with farm animals—enhancing welfare through precision livestock farming and artificial intelligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About