National Practices Regarding Payment to Research Subjects for Participating in Pediatric Research

Author:

Weise Kathryn L.1,Smith Martin L.2,Maschke Karen J.1,Copeland H. Liesel1

Affiliation:

1. Departments of Pediatric Critical Care, Bioethics, and Education, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio

2. University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

Abstract

Objective. Payment to subjects for participation in research is reportedly common, but no published data documents the nature of this practice. Institutional review boards (IRBs) are responsible for ensuring both the safety and voluntary participation of research subjects, yet guidance from federal and expert pediatric sources regarding appropriate payment approaches is conflicting. Ethical issues of payment for participation of adult versus pediatric research subjects may differ. This empirical study sought to examine current payment practices for participation in pediatric research as reported by IRBs. Design. An 18-question survey regarding payment practices for participation in pediatric research was sent to IRB chairs at member institutions of the National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related Institutions, and to a systematic random sample of IRB chairs listed with the Office for Protection From Research Risks. Descriptive, nonparametric, and qualitative analyses were used to describe institution types, payment practices, and correlations among responses. Results. Data from 128 institutions that conduct pediatric research revealed that payment for participation in pediatric research was allowed by 66% of responding institutions, and practices varied widely among institutions. Most responding IRBs that allowed payment required disclosure of payment before enrollment (during the consent process), following federal guidelines more closely than American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines. An IRB’s perception of potential benefits or harms of a study correlated with the amount of payment approved. Conclusions. IRBs must balance the need to recruit pediatric research subjects against the risk of undue influence during the recruitment process. Federal guidelines and expert pediatric opinion differ in recommendations regarding payment; responding IRBs appeared to follow federal guidelines more closely than guidelines proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Publisher

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Subject

Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Reference12 articles.

1. Penslar RL. National Institutes of Health, Office for Protection From Research Risks. Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook, 1993. 2nd ed. Bethesda, MD: Office for Protection From Research Risks, National Institutes of Health; 1993

2. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Health Affairs. Information Sheets. Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, Office of Health Affairs; 1998

3. Schultz S. Drug trials are clamoring for kids, but scrutinize the study before signing up. US News & World Report. April 17, 2000

4. Department of Health and Human Services. Office for Protection From Research Risks (OPRR). Protection of Human Subjects. 45 CFR 46.116

5. Glanz LH. Research with children. Am J Law Med.1998;24:213–244

Cited by 40 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Providing inclusive strategies for practitioners and researchers working with gender and sexually diverse youth without parental/guardian consent.;Supporting gender identity and sexual orientation diversity in K-12 schools.;2021

2. Study partners: essential collaborators in discovering treatments for Alzheimer’s disease;Alzheimer's Research & Therapy;2018-09-27

3. The Ethics of Research with Human Subjects;International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine;2018

4. Informed Consent;The Ethics of Research with Human Subjects;2018

5. Clinical trials: Kids are not just little people;Clinics in Dermatology;2017-11

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3