Filthy Lucre or Fitting Offer? Understanding Worries About Payments to Research Participants

Comparing Payments Between Sociobehavioral and Biomedical Studies in a Large Research University in Southern California

“…While we cannot determine the rationales behind payment decisions with a retrospective review of administrative data, our findings showing that payments depended on time required for participation, number of interactions between researchers and participants, and that the majority of biomedical and sociobehavioral studies offered payments suggest researchers were aware of the importance of compensating research participants for their time and effort, which may reduce worries of exploitation (Largent et al, 2013, 2017, 2019). Still, the question remains about whether payments were adequate/appropriate enough: in some cases, payments may have been too low and therefore potentially exploitative.…”

“…Some scholars, noting the lack of consensus about when payments could result in undue influence, argue that payments should not be based on the level of risk that study participation entails (Cleary et al, 2016;Ensign, 2003;Hammett & Sporton, 2012). Others argue that it is acceptable for researchers to base payment amounts at least partially on risk level, because concerns about undue influence should be largely mitigated so long as there is a well-functioning, independent ethical review board (e.g., IRB), which is charged with doing a proper risk-benefit assessment and minimizing risks and burdens (Emanuel, 2005;Largent et al, 2013Largent et al, , 2019. As a part of undue influence, some ethicists are concerned that payment allows potential participants to obscure or ignore potential risks.…”

“…There is also concern that payments to research participants can lead to exploitation if participants are not fairly compensated for their time and effort. A broader expression of this concern regards the disproportionate burdens of research borne by people of low socioeconomic status, while people of higher socioeconomic status reap the benefits (Denny & Grady, 2007; Elliot & Abadie, 2008; Largent et al, 2019; Smith, 2018). In the extensive literature exploring these concerns, scholars continue to debate whether and when payments to research participants result in undue inducement, coercion, and/or exploitation, the meaning of such concepts, and generally what constitutes and how to determine appropriate payments (Grady, 2019; Largent et al, 2017, 2019; Malmqvist, 2019; Millum & Garnett, 2019).…”

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

“…There is, however, little regulatory guidance and limited ethical consensus to guide investigators in designing offers of payment or to aid institutional review boards (IRBs) in reviewing them (Gelinas et al, 2018). The most common ethical concerns related to offers of payment for research participation include coercion, undue influence, and exploitation (Emanuel, 2005;Klitzman, 2012;Largent et al, 2012bLargent et al, , 2019aLargent & Lynch, 2017a, 2017bMacklin, 1981;Wertheimer & Miller, 2008). These payment-related concerns may be heightened when offers of payment are made to individuals with or at risk for OUD, or new concerns may arise (Buchanan et al, 2002;Seddon, 2005;Morán-Sánchez et al, 2016).…”

Providing Incentives to Youth Participants in Research: A Literature Review

“…What effect the offer of payment has on the decision to participate in research is also understudied, particularly for young people. Experts have also been concerned that making payments to research participants has the potential for undue influence or exploitation and that payments risk unacceptably commodifying research (Largent et al, 2019). These issues clearly apply to all research involving human subjects.…”