Procedures of recruiting, obtaining informed consent, and compensating research participants in Qatar: findings from a qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Very few researchers have reported on procedures of recruiting, obtaining informed consent, and compensating participants in health research in the Arabian Gulf Region. Empirical research can inform the debate about whether to adjust these procedures for culturally diverse settings. Our objective was to delineate procedures related to recruiting, obtaining informed consent, and compensating health research participants in the extremely high-density multicultural setting of Qatar. METHODS: During a multistage mixed methods project, field observations and qualitative interviews were conducted in a general medicine clinic of a major medical center in Qatar. Participants were chosen based on gender, age, literacy, and preferred language, i.e., Arabic, English, Hindi and Urdu. Qualitative analysis identified themes about recruitment, informed consent, compensation, and other research procedures. RESULTS: A total of 153 individuals were approached and 84 enrolled; the latter showed a diverse age range (18 to 75 years); varied language representation: Arabic (n = 24), English (n = 20), Hindi (n = 20), and Urdu (n = 20); and balanced gender distribution: women (n = 43) and men (n = 41). Primary reasons for 30 declinations included concern about interview length and recording. The study achieved a 74% participation rate. Qualitative analytics revealed key themes about hesitation to participate, decisions about participation with family members as well as discussions with them as "incidental research participants", the informed consent process, privacy and gender rules of the interview environment, reactions to member checking and compensation, and motivation for participating. Vulnerability emerged as a recurring issue throughout the process among a minority of participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study from Qatar is the first to provide empirical data on recruitment, informed consent, compensation and other research procedures in a general adult population in the Middle East and Arabian Gulf. This investigation illustrates how potential research participants perceive research participation. Fundamentally, Western ethical research principles were applicable, but required flexibility and culturally informed adaptations.

Human research subjects as human research workers.

Biomedical research involving human subjects has traditionally been treated as a unique endeavor, presenting special risks and demanding special protections. But in several ways, the regulatory scheme governing human subjects research is counter-intuitively less protective than the labor and employment laws applicable to many workers. This Article relies on analogical and legal reasoning to demonstrate that this should not be the case; in a number of ways, human research subjects ought to be fundamentally recast as human research workers. Like other workers protected under worklaw, biomedical research subjects often have interests that diverge from those in positions of control but little bargaining power for change. Bearing these important similarities in mind, the question becomes whether there is any good reason to treat subjects and protected workers differently as a matter of law. With regard to unrestricted payment, eligibility for a minimum wage, compensation for injury, and rights to engage in concerted activity, the answer is no and human subjects regulations ought to be revised accordingly.

Do patients who take part in stroke research differ from non-participants? Implications for generalizability of results.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the most disabling neurological conditions. Clinical research is vital for expanding knowledge of treatment effectiveness among stroke patients. However, evidence begins to accumulate that stroke patients who take part in research represent only a small proportion of all stroke patients. Research participants may also differ from the broader patient population in ways that could potentially distort treatment effects reported in therapeutic trials. The aims of this study were to estimate the proportion of stroke patients who take part in clinical research studies and to compare demographic and clinical profiles of research participants and non-participants. METHODS: 5,235 consecutive patients admitted to the Stroke Care Unit of the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, for stroke or transient ischaemic attack between January 2004 and December 2011 were studied. The study used cross-sectional design. Information was collected on patients' demographic and socio-economic characteristics, risk factors, and comorbidities. Associations between research participation and patient characteristics were initially assessed using χ(2) or Mann-Whitney tests, followed by a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The logistic regression analysis was carried out using generalised estimating equations approach, to account for patient readmissions during the study period. RESULTS: 558 Stroke Care Unit patients (10.7%) took part in at least one of the 33 clinical research studies during the study period. Transfer from another hospital (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.55), worse premorbid function (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.70), being single (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84) or widowed (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.99), non-English language (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.85), high socio-economic status (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.93), residence outside Melbourne (OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95), weekend admission (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.94), and a history of atrial fibrillation (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99) were associated with lower odds of research participation. A history of hypertension (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.08-2.07) and current smoking (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.50) on the other hand were associated with higher odds of research participation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that stroke patients who take part in clinical research do not represent 'typical' patient admitted to a stroke unit. The imbalance of prognostic factors between stroke participants and non-participants has serious implications for interpretation of research findings reported in stroke literature. This study provides insights into clinical, demographic, and socio-economic characteristics of stroke patients that could potentially be targeted to enhance generalizability of stroke research studies. Given the imbalance of prognostic factors between research participants and non-participants, future studies need to examine differences in stroke outcomes of these groups of patients.

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

BACKGROUND: Payment of research participants helps to increase recruitment for research studies, but can pose ethical dilemmas. Research ethics committees (RECs) have a centrally important role in guiding this practice, but standardisation of the ethical approval process in Ireland is lacking. AIM: Our aim was to examine REC policies, experiences and concerns with respect to the payment of participants in research projects in Ireland. METHOD: Postal survey of all RECs in Ireland. RESULTS: Response rate was 62.5% (n=50). 80% of RECs reported not to have any established policy on the payment of research subjects while 20% had refused ethics approval to studies because the investigators proposed to pay research participants. The most commonly cited concerns were the potential for inducement and undermining of voluntary consent. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability among RECs on the payment of research participants and a lack of clear consensus guidelines on the subject. The development of standardised guidelines on the payment of research subjects may enhance recruitment of research participants.

Relative efficacy of cash versus vouchers in engaging opioid substitution treatment clients in survey-based research.

Concerns that cash payments to people who inject drugs (PWID) to reimburse research participation will facilitate illicit drug purchases have led some ethical authorities to mandate department store/supermarket vouchers as research reimbursement. To examine the relative efficacy of the two forms of reimbursement in engaging PWID in research, clients of two public opioid substitution therapy clinics were invited to participate in a 20-30 min, anonymous and confidential interview about alcohol consumption on two separate occasions, 4 months apart. Under the crossover design, at Time 1, clients of Clinic 1 were offered $A20 cash as reimbursement, while clients of Clinic 2 were offered an $A20 voucher; at Time 2, the form of reimbursement was reversed. Using clinic records to determine the denominator (number of clients dosed), we found that compared with clients offered a voucher, a significantly higher proportion of clients who were offered cash participated in the survey (58% (139/241) vs 74% (186/252); χ(2)=14.27; p=0.0002). At first participation, respondents most commonly reported planning to purchase food/drinks/groceries (68%), cigarettes (21%) and transport/fuel (11%) with their payments, with those reimbursed in cash more likely to report planning to fund transport/fuel (19% vs 1%; p<.01) and less likely to report planning to purchase food/drinks/groceries (62% vs 76%; p=0.02). Just three out of 155 cash participants reported planning to purchase illicit drugs with their payment. Results demonstrate that modest cash payments enhanced recruitment of this group, an important consideration given the challenges of delineating the parameters of a population defined by illegal activity, seemingly without promoting excessive additional drug use.

Is payment a benefit?

What I call 'the standard view' claims that IRBs should not regard financial payment as a benefit to subjects for the purpose of risk/benefit assessment. Although the standard view is universally accepted, there is little defense of that view in the canonical documents of research ethics or the scholarly literature. This paper claims that insofar as IRBs should be concerned with the interests and autonomy of research subjects, they should reject the standard view and adopt 'the incorporation view.' The incorporation view is more consistent with the underlying soft-paternalist justification for risk-benefit assessment and demonstrates respect for the autonomy of prospective subjects. Adoption of the standard view precludes protocols that advance the interests of subjects, investigators, and society. After considering several objections to the argument, I consider several arguments for the standard view that do not appeal to the interests and autonomy of research subjects.

Misconceptions about coercion and undue influence: reflections on the views of IRB members.

Payment to recruit research subjects is a common practice but raises ethical concerns relating to the potential for coercion or undue influence. We conducted the first national study of IRB members and human subjects protection professionals to explore attitudes as to whether and why payment of research participants constitutes coercion or undue influence. Upon critical evaluation of the cogency of ethical concerns regarding payment, as reflected in our survey results, we found expansive or inconsistent views about coercion and undue influence that may interfere with valuable research. In particular, respondents appear to believe that coercion and undue influence lie on a continuum; by contrast, we argue that they are wholly distinct: whereas undue influence is a cognitive distortion relating to assessment of risks and benefits, coercion is a threat of harm. Because payment is an offer, rather than a threat, payment is never coercive.

Expanding the frame of "voluntariness" in informed consent: structural coercion and the power of social and economic context.

This paper introduces the term "structural coercion" to underscore the ways in which broader social, economic, and political contexts act upon individuals to compel them to enroll as subjects in clinical research. The paper challenges the adequacy of the concepts of "coercion" and "undue influence" in determining when research participation is voluntary. Acknowledging structural coercion shifts the frame of ethical deliberation away from specific individuals and specific studies to see important patterns in research participation by salient demographic characteristics. The effects of structural coercion manifest themselves in particular research settings, but unlike the conventional form of coercion, it is not rooted in the researcher-participant relationship or linked to particular study protocols. By extracting voluntariness from entrenched conceptions of the researcher-participant dyad, this paper proposes approaches to minimize the effects of structural coercion while creating new ethical imaginaries for review boards and researchers alike.

Quantitative valuation placed by children and teenagers on participation in two hypothetical research scenarios.

For paediatric medicine to advance, research must be conducted specifically with children. Concern about poor recruitment has led to debate about payments to child research participants. Although concerns about undue influence by such 'compensation' have been expressed, it is useful to determine whether children can relate the time and inconvenience associated with participation to the value of payment offered. This study explores children's ability to determine fair remuneration for research participation, and reviews payments to children participating in research. Forty children were interviewed before outpatient visits at two London Hospitals: Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital and the Whittington Hospital District General Hospital. Children were asked to value their involvement in two hypothetical research scenarios - the first an 'additional blood sample', the second also involving daily oral oil capsules taken for a fortnight before further venesection. Background knowledge about familiarity with money, and experience with hospitalisation was assessed. The mean valuation of involvement in the second scenario (£13.18) was higher than in the first (£2.84) (p<0.001). This higher valuation persisted when children were categorised into groups 'aged 12+' and 'below 12'. Those undergoing a blood test on the day placed a higher valuation on participation in the second scenario (£10.43, £21.67, p=0.044). These children aged 8-16 demonstrated the capacity to discern a fair valuation for participation in medical research. The monetary sums are influenced by the time and inconvenience involved in the research, and by the extent of recent experience with hospital procedures. The authors review current ethical thinking regarding payments to child research participants and suggest that a fair wage model might be an ethically acceptable way to increase participation of children in research.

Benefits and payments for research participants: experiences and views from a research centre on the Kenyan coast.

BACKGROUND: There is general consensus internationally that unfair distribution of the benefits of research is exploitative and should be avoided or reduced. However, what constitutes fair benefits, and the exact nature of the benefits and their mode of provision can be strongly contested. Empirical studies have the potential to contribute viewpoints and experiences to debates and guidelines, but few have been conducted. We conducted a study to support the development of guidelines on benefits and payments for studies conducted by the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust programme in Kilifi, Kenya. METHODS: Following an initial broad based survey of cash, health services and other items being offered during research by all programme studies (n = 38 studies), interviews were held with research managers (n = 9), and with research staff involved in 8 purposively selected case studies (n = 30 interviewees). Interviews explored how these 'benefits' were selected and communicated, experiences with their administration, and recommendations for future guidelines. Data fed into a consultative workshop attended by 48 research staff and health managers, which was facilitated by an external ethicist. FINDINGS: The most commonly provided benefits were medical care (for example free care, and strengthened quality of care), and lunch or snacks. Most cash given to participants was reimbursement of transport costs (for example to meet appointments or facilitate use of services when unexpectedly sick), but these payments were often described by research participants as benefits. Challenges included: tensions within households and communities resulting from lack of clarity and agreement on who is eligible for benefits; suspicion regarding motivation for their provision; and confusion caused by differences between studies in types and levels of benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Research staff differed in their views on how benefits should be approached. Echoing elements of international benefit sharing and ancillary care debates, some research staff saw research as based on goodwill and partnership, and aimed to avoid costs to participants and a commercial relationship; while others sought to maximise participant benefits given the relative wealth of the institution and the multiple community needs. An emerging middle position was to strengthen collateral or indirect medical benefits to communities through collaborations with the Ministry of Health to support sustainability.

Compensation effects on clinical trial data collection in opioid-dependent young adults.

BACKGROUND: Attrition in studies of substance use disorder treatment is problematic, potentially introducing bias into data analysis. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the effect of participant compensation amounts on rates of missing data and observed rates of drug use. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a clinical trial of buprenorphine/naloxone among 152 treatment-seeking opioid-dependent subjects aged 15-21 during participation in a randomized trial. Subjects were randomized to a 2-week detoxification with buprenorphine/naloxone (DETOX; N = 78) or 12 weeks buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP; N = 74). Participants were compensated $5 for weekly urine drug screens and self-reported drug use information and $75 for more extensive assessments at weeks 4, 8, and 12. RESULTS: Though BUP assignment decreased the likelihood of missing data, there were significantly less missing data at 4, 8, and 12 weeks than other weeks, and the effect of compensation on the probability of urine screens being positive was more pronounced in DETOX subjects. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that variations in the amount of compensation for completing assessments can differentially affect outcome measurements, depending on treatment group assignment. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Adequate financial compensation may minimize bias when treatment condition is associated with differential dropout and may be a cost-effective way to reduce attrition. Moreover, active users may be more likely than non-active users to drop out if compensation is inadequate, especially in control groups or in groups who are not receiving active treatment.

US IRBs confronting research in the developing world.

UNLABELLED: Increasingly, US-sponsored research is carried out in developing countries, but how US Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) approach the challenges they then face is unclear. METHODS: I conducted in-depth interviews of about 2 hours each, with 46 IRB chairs, directors, administrators and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs in the United States (US) (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding), and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 (55%). RESULTS: US IRBs face ethical and logistical challenges in interpreting and applying principles and regulations in developing countries, given economic and health disparities, and limited contextual knowledge. These IRBs perceive wide variations in developing world IRBs/RECs' quality, resources and training; and health systems in some countries may have long-standing practices of corruption. These US IRBs often know little of local contexts, regulations and standards of care, and struggle with understandings of other cultures' differing views of autonomy, and risks and benefits of daily life. US IRBs thus face difficult decisions, including how to interpret principles, how much to pay subjects and how much sustainability to require from researchers. IRB responses and solutions include trying to maintain higher standards for developing world research, obtain cultural expertise, build IRB infrastructure abroad, communicate with foreign IRBs, and 'negotiate' for maximum benefits for participants and fearing 'worst-case scenarios'. CONCLUSIONS: US and foreign IRBs confront a series of tensions and dilemmas in reviewing developing world research. These data have important implications for increased education of IRBs/RECs and researchers in the US and abroad, and for research and practice.

Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.

CONTEXT: Federal regulations mandate independent review and approval by an "institutional review board" (IRB) before studies that involve human research subjects may begin. Although many researchers strongly support the need for IRB review, they also contend that it is burdensome when it imposes costs that do not add to the protections afforded to research participants and that this burden threatens the viability of research. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently announced its intention to reform the regulations governing IRB review. METHODS: We used a search of the PubMed database, supplemented by a bibliographic review, to identify all existing primary data on the costs of IRB review. "Costs" were broadly defined to include both expenditures of time or money and constraints imposed on the scope of the research. Burdensome costs were limited to those that did not contribute to greater protections for the participants. FINDINGS: Evidence from a total of fifty-two studies shows that IRBs operate at different levels of efficiency; that waiting to obtain IRB approval has, in some instances, delayed project initiation; that IRBs presented with identical protocols sometimes asked for different and even competing revisions; and that some decisions made (and positions held) by IRBs are not in accord with federal policy guidance. CONCLUSIONS: While the evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is burden associated with IRB review, it is too limited to allow for valid estimates of its magnitude or to serve as the basis for formulating policies on IRB reform. The single exception is multicenter research, for which we found that review by several local IRBs is likely to be burdensome. No mechanism currently exists at the national level to gather systematic evidence on the intersection between research and IRB review. This gap is of concern in light of the changing nature of research and the increasingly important role that research is envisioned to play in improving the overall quality of health care.

Exploitation in payments to research subjects.

Offering cash payments to research subjects is a common recruiting method but there is significant debate about whether and in what amount such payments are appropriate. This paper is concerned with exploitation and whether there should be a lower limit on the amount researchers can pay their subjects. When subjects participate in research as a way to make money, fairness requires that researchers pay them a fair wage. This call for the establishment of a lower limit meets resistance in two places: (1) denial that the payments offered by researchers are wages for participation; and (2) concern about undue inducement. This paper critically examines these arguments for and against a lower limit. It shows that the need for a lower limit cannot be avoided by adopting a non-wage payment model and that concerns about undue inducement are unjustified in all trials except those that present greater than minimal risk. This analysis suggests the following compromise position: there should be an unconditional lower limit on payment amounts so that researchers cannot offer less than a fair wage, and when researchers cannot satisfy this limit because fairness requires a problematically large payment, then researchers should offer no payment at all.

Health researchers' ancillary care obligations in low-resource settings: how can we tell what is morally required?

Health researchers working in low-resource settings often encounter serious unmet health needs among participants. What is the nature and extent of researchers' obligations to respond to such needs? Competing accounts have been proposed, but there is no independent standard by which to assess them or to guide future inquiry. I propose an independent standard and demonstrate its use. In conclusion I recommend two areas of focus for future inquiry: what makes an account of researchers' obligations reasonable from the standpoint of both participants and researchers and how general duties of rescue apply to researchers' resource-allocation decision making in low-resource settings.

Healthy volunteers and early phases of clinical experimentation.

The main goal of early phase trials is to gain knowledge about the clinical suitability of novel compounds, without pursuing specific therapeutic purposes. Healthy volunteers usually represent the ideal model for conducting phase I clinical trials, in order to investigate pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics as well as to document safety and tolerability without interference by concomitant pathological conditions. The increasing cost of novel drug development, in conjunction with ethical considerations, has fostered a new procedure for first-in-man trials, designated as "phase 0," which is conducted very early on a limited number of healthy volunteers who are exposed to low drug levels. The present review discusses issues concerning the enrollment of healthy volunteers in the early phase of drug development from different points of view, with some focus on the Italian experience. From the ethical standpoint, much discussion revolves around payments to healthy volunteers. Most authors agree that an adequate remuneration must be provided to healthy subjects, while avoiding coercion and excessive psychological pressure. Pending the lack of international and national guidelines, our center for clinical drug experimentation has implemented an operative procedure to estimate payments for healthy volunteers based on specific items, including restriction, time spent, discomfort, and risk. Other unresolved issues about the recruitment of healthy volunteers are represented by the lack of international consensus on the definition of healthy status and the need for guidelines about advertisement on clinical trials addressed to potential participants.

Between the needy and the greedy: the quest for a just and fair ethics of clinical research.

The acceleration of the market globalisation process over the last three decades has internationalised clinical research and influenced both the way in which it is funded and the development and application of research practices. In addition, in recent years international multicentre randomised clinical trials have become the model par excellence for research on new medicines. The neoliberal model of globalisation has induced a decline in state power, both with regard to establishing national research for health priorities and to influencing the development of adequate ethical guidelines to protect human beings that participate in multinational research. In this respect, poor and low-income countries, which lack sustainable control and review systems to deal with the ethical and methodological challenges of complex studies conducted by researchers from affluent countries and funded by large multinational pharmaceutical companies, are particularly vulnerable. The aim of the present paper is to explore critically some of the actual and possible ethical pitfalls of globalisation of clinical research and propose mechanisms for turning transnational clinical research into a more cooperative and fairer enterprise.

Community members as recruiters of human subjects: ethical considerations.

Few studies have considered in detail the ethical issues surrounding research in which investigators ask community members to engage in research subject recruitment within their own communities. Peer-driven recruitment (PDR) and its variants are useful for accessing and including certain populations in research, but also have the potential to undermine the ethical and scientific integrity of community-based research. This paper examines the ethical implications of utilizing community members as recruiters of human subjects in the context of PDR, as well as the authors' experience with a variant of PDR in a research project in South Africa. The importance of situating PDR in a comprehensive community engagement process that is responsive to the constraints of science and local needs and interests is emphasized. The paper will have relevance to bioethicists, health researchers, and research regulators concerned about the appropriate use of peer-driven recruitment strategies in health research.

The case for evidence-based rulemaking in human subjects research.

Here I inquire into the status of the rules promulgated in the canonical pronouncements on human subjects research, such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report. The question is whether they are ethical rules or rules of policy. An ethical rule is supposed to accurately reflect the ethical fact (the fact that the action the rule prescribes is ethically obligatory), whereas rules of policy are implemented to achieve a goal. We should be skeptical, I argue, that the actions prescribed by the rules are ethically obligatory, and consequently we should focus our attention on how to craft the rules so as to promote the legitimate goals of human subjects research. Unfortunately, this cannot be done without evidence about the likely effects of various candidate policies-evidence we currently lack. Therefore, we should take the rules as mere starting points, subject to revision as the evidence comes in.