Benefits and payments for research participants: Experiences and views from a research centre on the Kenyan coast
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
BMC Medical Ethics (1):13- (2012)
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.FindingsThe 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
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sassy Molyneux, Stephen Mulupi, Lairumbi Mbaabu & Vicki Marsh (2012). Benefits and Payments for Research Participants: Experiences and Views From a Research Centre on the Kenyan Coast. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):13-.
John Appiah-Poku, Sam Newton & Nancy Kass (2011). Participants' Perceptions of Research Benefits in an African Genetic Epidemiology Study. Developing World Bioethics 11 (3):128-135.
Holly A. Taylor & Maria W. Merritt (2012). Provision of Community-Wide Benefits in Public Health Intervention Research: The Experience of Investigators Conducting Research in the Community Setting in South Asia. Developing World Bioethics 12 (3):157-163.
Angela Ballantyne (2008). Benefits to Research Subjects in International Trials: Do They Reduce Exploitation or Increase Undue Inducement? Developing World Bioethics 8 (3):178-191.
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.
Caroline Gikonyo, Dorcas Kamuya, Bibi Mbete, Patricia Njuguna, Ally Olotu, Philip Bejon, Vicki Marsh & Sassy Molyneux (2013). Feedback of Research Findings for Vaccine Trials: Experiences From Two Malaria Vaccine Trials Involving Healthy Children on the Kenyan Coast. Developing World Bioethics 13 (1):48-56.
Geoffrey Lairumbi, Michael Parker, Raymond Fitzpatrick & Michael English (2012). Forms of Benefit Sharing in Global Health Research Undertaken in Resource Poor Settings: A Qualitative Study of Stakeholders' Views in Kenya. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 7 (1):1-8.
Dorcas M. Kamuya, Sally J. Theobald, Patrick K. Munywoki, Dorothy Koech, Wenzel P. Geissler & Sassy C. Molyneux (2013). Evolving Friendships and Shifting Ethical Dilemmas: Fieldworkers' Experiences in a Short Term Community Based Study in Kenya. Developing World Bioethics 13 (1):1-9.
Janet Malek (2007). Understanding Risks and Benefits in Research on Reproductive Genetic Technologies. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):339 – 358.
Reidar K. Lie (2010). The Fair Benefits Approach Revisited. Hastings Center Report 40 (4):3-3.
R. Macklin (2010). Intertwining Biomedical Research and Public Health in HIV Microbicide Research. Public Health Ethics 3 (3):199-209.
Dorcas M. Kamuya, Vicki Marsh, Francis K. Kombe, P. Wenzel Geissler & Sassy C. Molyneux (2013). Engaging Communities to Strengthen Research Ethics in Low‐Income Settings: Selection and Perceptions of Members of a Network of Representatives in Coastal Kenya. Developing World Bioethics 13 (1):10-20.
David Wendler & Christine Grady (2008). What Should Research Participants Understand to Understand They Are Participants in Research? Bioethics 22 (4):203–208.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads5 ( #175,815 of 1,004,657 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,617 of 1,004,657 )
How can I increase my downloads?