Interesting and important ethical questions confront researchers, regulators, institutional review boards, support personnel, and research participants committed to the ethical conduct of human subjects research at all stages of research. Questions encompass - but are not limited to - study design, enrolling participants, balancing the clinical needs of participants against the research agenda, ending trials, discharging post-trial obligations, and resolving conflicts. Straightforward solutions to these types of questions are often not found in regulations, ethics codes, or the bioethics liter
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
Offering payment is an important means of facilitating research participation. Yet, offers of payment raise ethical challenges that may be heightened when prospective participants suffer from or are at risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). We surveyed principal investigators (PIs) conducting research in this population to characterize the relative importance they assign to various ethical and practical factors when designing offers of payment and also analyzed descriptions of payment in both their study advertisements and consent forms. Overall, we found that, despite literature suggesting heightened ethical concerns for this population, practical factors related to payment were more influential for PIs than either ethical factors or factors unique to individuals with or at risk for OUD. Our findings can help inform the development of ethical, effective recruitment and retention strategies for research in this population.
ABSTRACTInvestigators commonly offer payments to research participants to promote recruitment and retention. Yet the ethics of offering monetary incentives to research participants continues to be debated. Prior conceptual work has addressed some of these concerns; there is, however, also a need for empirical evidence to understand the effects of payment on participants. Here, we report the results of a qualitative study comprising (1) discourse analysis of recruitment conversations between study coordinators and potential participants for an actual clinical trial and (2) semistructured interviews with participants addressing the effects of an incentive on their decision‐making. Many participants reported that money had been a motivation for enrolling in the clinical trial but did not use reasoning that suggested undue influence or unjust inducement. These findings add to a growing body of literature suggesting that payment is an ethically acceptable tool for promoting recruitment and retention in clinical trials.
IMPORTANCE: As COVID-19 vaccine distribution continues, policy makers are struggling to decide which groups should be prioritized for vaccination. OBJECTIVE: To assess US adults' preferences regarding COVID-19 vaccine prioritization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This survey study involved 2 independent, online surveys of US adults aged 18 years and older, 1 conducted by Gallup from September 14 to 27, 2020, and the other conducted by the COVID Collaborative from September 19 to 25, 2020. Samples were weighted to reflect sociodemographic characteristics of the US population. EXPOSURES: Respondents were asked to prioritize groups for COVID-19 vaccine and to rank their prioritization considerations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The study assessed prioritization preferences and agreement with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's Preliminary Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine. RESULTS: A total of 4735 individuals participated, 2730 (1474 men [54.1%]; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [14.5] years) in the Gallup survey and 2005 (944 men [47.1%]; 203 participants [21.5%] aged 55-59 years) in the COVID Collaborative survey. In both the Gallup COVID-19 Panel and COVID Collaborative surveys, respondents listed health care workers (Gallup, 93.6% [95% CI, 91.2%-95.3%]; COVID Collaborative, 80.0% [95% CI, 78.0%-81.9%]) and adults of any age with serious comorbid conditions (Gallup, 78.6% [95% CI, 75.2%-81.7%]; COVID Collaborative, 72.9% [95% CI, 70.7%-74.9%]) among their 4 highest priority groups. Respondents of all political affiliations agreed with prioritizing Black, Hispanic, Native American, and other communities that have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 (Gallup, 74.2% [95% CI, 70.6%-77.5%]; COVID Collaborative, 84.9% [95% CI, 83.1%-86.5%]), and COVID Collaborative respondents were willing to be preceded in line by teachers and childcare workers (92.5%; 95% CI, 91.2%-93.7%) and grocery workers (85.9%; 95% CI, 84.2%-87.5%). Older respondents in both surveys were ...
Objectives Early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) using brain scans and other biomarker tests will be essential to increasing the benefits of emerging disease-modifying therapies, but AD biomarkers may have unintended negative consequences on stigma. We examined how a brain scan result affects AD diagnosis confidence and AD stigma.
Methods The study used a vignette-based experiment with a 2×2×3 factorial design of main effects: a brain scan result as positive or negative, treatment availability and symptom stage. We sampled 1,283 adults ages 65 and older between 11 June and 3 July 2019. Participants (1) rated their confidence in an AD diagnosis in each of four medical evaluations that varied in number and type of diagnostic tools and (2) read a vignette about a fictional patient with varied characteristics before completing the Modified Family Stigma in Alzheimer's Disease Scale (FS-ADS). We examined mean diagnosis confidence by medical evaluation type. We conducted between-group comparisons of diagnosis confidence and FS-ADS scores in the positive versus negative brain scan result conditions and, in the positive condition, by symptom stage and treatment availability.
Results A positive versus negative test result corresponds with higher confidence in an AD diagnosis independent of medical evaluation type (all p<0.001). A positive result correlates with stronger reactions on 6 of 7 FS-ADS domains (all p<0.001).
Discussion A positive biomarker result heightens AD diagnosis confidence but also correlates with more AD stigma. Our findings inform strategies to promote early diagnosis and clinical discussions with individuals undergoing AD biomarker testing.
Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is becoming increasingly common. However, there is little evidence regarding what novel ethical challenges, if any, are posed by PCOR with relevance to institutional review board (IRB) oversight and human subjects protections. This article reports the results of a national survey of all IRB chairpersons from research-intensive institutions in the United States. Findings address the responsibilities of IRBs and the challenges associated with PCOR review and oversight. IRB chairpersons varied in their judgment of PCOR's overall value to the scientific enterprise and to research at their institution. Furthermore, 27% of respondents considered patients serving in nontraditional roles to be research subjects even when they are not enrolled in research. There was also variation in the training and safeguards their IRBs require for patient partners. Our results suggest that guidance should be developed around ethical and regulatory issues associated with PCOR oversight.
