Informative inducement: Study payment as a signal of risk

Cryder, Cynthia; London, Alex John; Volpp, Kevin G.; Loewenstein, George

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.047

Cited by 101 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is best accomplished by offering payment to participants. Ethicists working on HIV/AIDS have stated that ‘ethical standards and oversight for HIV cure research must be as rigorous and cutting-edge as the science’ 28. It is time to revisit the standard view and question whether offers of payment can—and should—be used as a legitimate benefit to offset research-related burdens and risks.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An undue inducement, which negates the comprehension element of informed consent, is an excessive or improper offer that ‘predictably triggers irrational decision-making given the agent's own settled (and reasonable) values and aims’ 27. Many people perceive a tension between exploitation and undue influence 28. On the one hand, if you offer research participants too little, they are exploited.…”

Section: Possible Objectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies

Largent

2016

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HIV cure research holds great potential to eradicate HIV, but the benefit to early trial participants is likely to be small. Moreover, participation carries unknown and possibly significant risks to research participants. This is the risk:benefit ratio challenge of HIV cure research. Although it may be consensual and rational for individuals to participate in HIV cure research that requires a degree of self-sacrifice, I argue that altruistic research participants can be exploited when the benefits to them are unfair. Transactions of this kind should not be prohibited, as that would be unacceptably paternalistic and thwart socially valuable research. Nevertheless, we should not simply accept these transactions but must work to reduce or eliminate exploitation by enhancing the benefits so that research participants are better off by their own lights. Offering payment in HIV cure research is the optimal way to enhance benefits to research participants and to make the risk:benefit ratio more favourable. I argue for a payment-as-benefit model against the standard view, assumed in ethics and policy, that offers of payment are not legitimate benefits.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Possible Objectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies

Largent

2016

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Paying for research participation might not appear to be dif erent from expanded access to experimental agents. Assuming certain conditions are met, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows patients who have exhausted other therapeutic options to obtain experimental treatments even outside the conf nes of a clinical trial (9). In such cases, companies are permitted to charge the patients in order to pay for the cost of the experimental drug or biological agent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical research: Should patients pay to play?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Healthy volunteers correlate research risk to the amount of payment they receive for participation—volunteers assume higher payment means riskier research 15. We might extrapolate that if participants pay to participate, they may be more likely to believe that the intervention is beneficial, despite advice to the contrary.…”

Section: Objectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Donor-funded research: permissible, not perfect

King

Ballantyne

2018

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Donor-funded research is research funded by private donors in exchange for research-related benefits, such as trial participation or access to the trial intervention. This has been pejoratively referred to as 'pay to play' research, and criticised as unethical. We outline three models of donor-funded research, and argue for their permissibility on the grounds of personal liberty, their capacity to facilitate otherwise unfunded health research and their consistency with current ethical standards for research. We defend this argument against objections that donor-funded research is wrongly exploitative, unfair and undermines the public good of medical research. Our conclusion is that, like all human subjects research, donor-funded research should be regulated via standard health research legislation/guidelines and undergo Research Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board and scientific peer-review. We expect that, measured against these standards, some donor-funded research would be acceptable.

show abstract

Informative inducement: Study payment as a signal of risk

Cited by 101 publications

References 13 publications

For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies

For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies

Clinical research: Should patients pay to play?

Donor-funded research: permissible, not perfect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About