David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (9):542-547 (2005)
Objective: To examine current research payment practices and to inform development of clearer guidelines for researchers and ethics committees.Design: Exploratory email based questionnaire study of current research participant reimbursement practices. A diverse sample of organisations and individuals were targeted.Setting: Australia.Participants: Contacts in 84 key research organisations and select electronic listservers across Australia. A total of 100 completed questionnaires were received with representations from a variety of research areas .Main measurements: Open-ended and fixed alternative questions about type of research agency; type of research; type of population under study; whether payment is standard; amounts and mechanisms of payment; factors taken into account when deciding on payment practices; and whether payment policies exist.Results: Reimbursement practice is highly variable. Where it occurs it is largely monetary and is for time and out-of-pocket expenses. Ethics committees were reported to be often involved in decision making around reimbursement.Conclusions: Research subject payment practices vary in Australia. Researchers who do provide payments to research participants generally do so without written policy and procedures. Ethics committees have an important role in developing guidelines in this area. Specific guidelines are needed considering existing local policies and procedures; payment models and their application in diverse settings; case study examples of types and levels of reimbursement; applied definitions of incentive and inducement; and the rationale for diverse payment practices in different settings
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Trisha B. Phillips (2011). A Living Wage for Research Subjects. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39 (2):243-253.
Morten Skovdal & Tatek Abebe (2012). Reflexivity and Dialogue: Methodological and Socio-Ethical Dilemmas in Research with HIV-Affected Children in East Africa. Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (1):77 - 96.
E. Roche, R. King, H. M. Mohan, B. Gavin & F. McNicholas (2013). Payment of Research Participants: Current Practice and Policies of Irish Research Ethics Committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (9):591-593.
Trisha B. Phillips (2011). A Living Wage for Research Subjects. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (2):243-253.
Similar books and articles
Betty Kwagala, Douglas Wassenaar & Julius Ecuru (2010). Payments and Direct Benefits in Hiv/Aids Related Research Projects in Uganda. Ethics and Behavior 20 (2):95 – 109.
Julius Ecuru, Douglas Wassenaar & Betty Kwagala (2010). Payments and Direct Benefits in HIV/AIDS Related Research Projects in Uganda. Ethics and Behavior 20 (2):95-109.
David Wendler & Christine Grady (2008). What Should Research Participants Understand to Understand They Are Participants in Research? Bioethics 22 (4):203–208.
Sandra T. Sigmon (1995). Ethical Practices and Beliefs of Psychopathology Researchers. Ethics and Behavior 5 (4):295 – 309.
Nicole A. Vincent, Pim Haselager & Gert-Jan Lokhorst (2011). “The Neuroscience of Responsibility”—Workshop Report. Neuroethics 4 (2):175-178.
Janet L. Brody, John P. Gluck & Alfredo S. Aragon (2000). Participants' Understanding of the Process of Psychological Research: Debriefing. Ethics and Behavior 10 (1):13 – 25.
Conrad Vincent Fernandez, Shaureen Taweel, Eric D. Kodish & Charles Weijer, Disclosure of Research Result to Research Participants: Needs and Attitudes of Adolescents and Parents.
M. L. Russell (2000). Paying Research Subjects: Participants' Perspectives. Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (2):126-130.
Diane K. Wagener, Amy K. Sporer, Mary Simmerling, Jennifer L. Flome, Christina An & Susan J. Curry (2004). Human Participants Challenges in Youth-Focused Research: Perspectives and Practices of IRB Administrators. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):335 – 349.
Corrine R. Sackett (2010). Authorship in Student-Faculty Collaborative Research: Perceptions of Current and Best Practices. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3):199-215.
Laura Welfare & Corrine Sackett (2010). Authorship in Student-Faculty Collaborative Research: Perceptions of Current and Best Practices. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3):199-215.
Conrad V. Fernandez, Eric Kodish, Susan Shurin & Charles Weijer, Offering to Return Results to Research Participants: Attitudes and Needs of Principal Investigators in the Children's Oncology Group.
Gerrit van Schalkwyk, Jantina de Vries & Keymanthri Moodley (2012). "It's for a Good Cause, Isn't It?" - Exploring Views of South African TB Research Participants on Sample Storage and Re-Use. BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):19-.
O. C. Ferrell, Michael D. Hartline & Stephen W. McDaniel (1998). Codes of Ethics Among Corporate Research Departments, Marketing Research Firms, and Data Subcontractors: An Examination of a Three-Communities Metaphor. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 17 (5):49-62.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads2 ( #682,556 of 1,796,251 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,795 of 1,796,251 )
How can I increase my downloads?