Why Do We Pay? A National Survey of Investigators and IRB Chairpersons

Abstract

The principle that payment to participants should not be undue or coercive is the consensus of international and national guidelines and ethical debates; however, what this means in practice is unclear. This study determined the attitudes and practices of IRB chairpersons and investigators regarding participant payment. One thousand six hundred investigators and 1900 IRB chairpersons received an invitation to participate in a web-based survey. Four hundred and fifty-five investigators (28.3%) and 395 IRB chairpersons (18.6%) responded. The survey was designed to gather considerations that govern payment determination and practical application of these considerations in hypothetical case studies. The survey asked best answer, multiple choice, and open text questions. Short hypothetical case scenarios where presented, and participants were asked to rate factors in the study that might impact payment and then determine their recommended payment. A predictive model was developed for each case to determine factors which affected payment. Although compensation was the primary reason given to justify payment by both investigators and IRB chairpersons, the cases suggested that, in practice, payment is often guided by incentive, as shown by the impact of anticipated difficulty recruiting, inconvenience, and risk in determining payment. Payment models varied by type of study. Ranges for recommended payments by both groups for different types of procedures and studies are presented.

“We’re giving you something so we get something in return”: Perspectives on research participation and compensation among people living with HIV who use drugs

“…Although compensation remains a contentious issue within the literature (Festinger et al, 2005; Fry & Dwyer, 2001; McKeganey, 2001; Pandya & Desai, 2013; Permuth-Wey & Borenstein, 2009; Ripley et al, 2010), our findings have important implications for how research compensation is approached. Specifically, our findings highlight the need to determine what constitutes equitable compensation for research participation, particularly when recruiting structurally vulnerable populations (e.g.…”

“…For structurally vulnerable populations, compensation remains highly contentious despite a wealth of literature exploring its tenuous impact on research (Festinger et al, 2005; Fry & Dwyer, 2001; McKeganey, 2001; Pandya & Desai, 2013; Permuth-Wey & Borenstein, 2009; Ripley, Macrina, Markowitz, & Gennings, 2010). Structurally vulnerable populations, such as people who use drugs (PWUD) and people living with HIV (PLHIV), occupy marginalized positions within larger social hierarchies based on socio-structural inequities (e.g.…”

“…policies, regulations) (McNeil et al, 2015; Quesada, Hart, & Bourgois, 2011). Researchers and research ethics boards recognize that compensation incentivizes participation (Ripley et al, 2010) and may prompt PWUD and other structurally vulnerable populations to engage in low or high-risk research primarily out of financial need (Dickert & Grady, 1999). …”

Payment of research participants: current practice and policies of Irish research ethics committees

“…In all, 20% of Irish RECs reported to have policies or guidelines regarding payment of research participants, compared with 66.4% of US-based IRBs 7. Cultural differences in both healthcare delivery and research practices may be relevant in this respect; 94% of research organisations based in the USA reported to offer payment to participants in ‘some’ projects 11.…”

“…Researchers generally turn to research ethics committees (RECs) for guidance on whether and how to pay research participants appropriately; however, only 66.4% of institutional review boards (IRBs) in the USA report to have guidelines in place themselves 7. The Health Service Executive of Ireland has concluded that there is a need for standardisation of the Irish REC approval processes 8.…”