Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:50:29.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heterogeneity in IRB Policies with Regard to Disclosures about Payment for Participation in Recruitment Materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Megan S. Wright  and
Christopher T. Robertson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The payment of human subjects is an area where Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have wide discretion. Although the “Common Rule” requires the provision of full information to human research participants to secure valid consent, the Rule is silent on the issue of payment. Still, some federal agencies offer guidance on the matter. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) cautions that high payments for risky research “may induce a needy participant to take a risk that they normally would prefer not to take.” For research under its purview, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance provides that “[a]dvertisements may state that subjects will be paid, but should not emphasize the payment or the amount to be paid, by such means as larger or bold type.” One might read the FDA guidance to permit the advertisement for human subjects to state the specific amount of payment, as long as it is not emphasized.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , Fall 2014 , pp. 375 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

45 C.F.R. § 46 (2009).Google Scholar
National Science Foundation (NSF), “Frequently Asked Questions and Vignettes: Problems and Advice on Dealing with Them: What Issues Arise Concerning Compensation,” available at <http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/hsfaqs.jsp#s>(last visited July 25, 2014);.(last+visited+July+25,+2014);.>Google Scholar
Largent, E. A. Grady, C. Miller, F. G. Wertheimer, A., “Money, Coercion, and Undue Influence: Attitudes about Payments to Research Participants,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 34, no. 1 (2012): 1–8, at 1;.Google Scholar
Largent, E. Grady, C. Miller, F. G. Wertheimer, A., “Misconceptions about Coercion and Undue Influence: Reflections on the Views of IRB Members,” Bioethics 27, no. 9 (2013): 500–507, at 500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See NSF, supra note 2.Google Scholar
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Recruiting Study Subjects – Information Sheet,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126428.htm>(last visited July 25, 2014).(last+visited+July+25,+2014).>Google Scholar
See Largent, et al (2013), supra note 2, at 500–501, and 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The current Common Rule and subsequent guidance from federal agencies following the Common Rule has a “protectionist ethos” meant to protect human subjects from potential risks of research and also from researchers who may unintentionally exploit their subjects.Google Scholar
See Henry, L. M., “Moral Gridlock: Conceptual Barriers to No-Fault Compensation for Injured Research Subjects,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41, no. 2 (2013): 411–423;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, D., “The Apomediated World: Regulating Research When Social Media Has Changed Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41, no. 2 (2013): 470–483, at 476–477. However, scholars have reported research subjects' concerns about the IRB. As Rothman notes, “[P]atients…want to make their own calculations of risks and benefits and to decide for themselves, without the veto power of an IRB, whether a protocol is worth entering.” D. J. Rothman, Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003): At 252.Google Scholar
Such restrictions on providing information may also infringe on the investigator's speech, not unlike the regulations on advertising the prices of alcohol, which the Supreme Court struck down as violating the First Amendment. See 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 503 (1996) (Stevens plurality)Google Scholar
Also analogously, in a pharmaceutical case, the Supreme Court emphasized that they have long “rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.” Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., 535 U.S. 357, 374 (2002).Google Scholar
See Rothman, , supra note 6, at 251;.Google Scholar
Maloney, D. M., Protection of Human Research Subjects: A Practical Guide to Federal Laws and Regulations (New York: Plenum Press, 1984): At 222–224. For examples of variation in how IRBs classify risks for multi-center studies, see Green, L. A. Lowery, J. C. Kowalski, C. P. Wyszewianski, L., “Impact of Institutional Review Board Practice Variation on Observational Health Services Research,” Health Research and Educational Trust 41, no. 1 (2005): 214–230;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, R. Hoover-Fong, J. Hamosh, A. Beck, S. Beaty, T. Cutting, G., “Problematic Variation in Local Institutional Review of a Multicenter Genetic Epidemiology Study,” JAMA 290, no. 3 (2003): 360–366;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbach, J. Acholonu, U. Clark, S. Camargo, C. A. Jr., “Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard, Observational, Pediatric Research Protocol,” Academic Emergency Medicine 14, no. 4 (2007): 377–380;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revina, B. Deuel, L. Siderowf, A. Dorsey, E. R., “Local Institutional Review Board (IRB) Review of a Multicenter Trial: Local Costs without Local Context,” Annals of Neurology 67, no. 2 (2010): 258–260;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, H. Hull, S. C. Sugarman, J., “Variability among Institutional Review Boards' Decisions within the Context of a Multicenter Trial,” Critical Care Medicine 29, no. 2 (2001): 235–241;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vick, C. C. Finan, K. R. Kiefe, C. Neumayer, L. Hawn, M. T., “Variation in Institutional Review Processes for a Multisite Observational Study,” American Journal of Surgery 190, no. 5 (2005): 805–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M., “Regulating the Production of Knowledge: Research Risk-Benefit Analysis and the Heterogeneity Problem,” Administrative Law Review 65, no. 2 (2013): 237–298.Google Scholar
Grant, R. W. Sugarman, J., “Ethics in Human Subjects Research: Do Incentives Matter?” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 29, no. 6 (2010): 717–738, at 732–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, T., “An Ethical Framework for the Practice of Paying Research Subjects,” IRB: Ethics and Human Research 11, no. 4 (1989): 1–4;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, H. F., “Human Research Subjects as Human Research Workers," available at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2296100>(last visited September 7, 2013).CrossRef(last+visited+September+7,+2013).>Google Scholar
See, for example, Phillips, T. B., “Money, Advertising and Seduction in Human Subjects Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 7, no. 2 (2007): 88–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Largent, et al (2012), supra note 2.Google Scholar
IdGoogle Scholar
IdGoogle Scholar
See Largent, et al (2013), supra note 2, at 501.Google Scholar
Id., at 501. For a similar argument, see Wertheimer, A. Miller, F. G., “Payment for Research Participation: A Coercive Offer?” Journal of Medical Ethics 34, no. 5 (2008): 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, J. P. Thacker, P. G., “The Influence of Risk and Monetary Payment on the Research Participation Decision Making Process,” Journal of Medical Ethics 30, no. 3 (2004): 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, for example, Halpern, S. D., “Towards Evidence Based Bioethics,” BMJ 331, no. 7521 (2005): 901–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Bentley, Thacker, , supra note 18.Google Scholar
Grady, C. Dickert, N. Jawetz, T. Gensler, G. Emanuel, E., “An Analysis of U.S. Practices of Paying Research Participants,” Contemporary Clinical Trials 26, no. 3 (2005): 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripley, E. Macrina, F. Markowitz, M. Gennings, C., “Why Do We Pay? A National Survey of Investigators and IRB Chairpersons,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5, no. 3 (2010): 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tishler, C. L. Bartholomae, S., “The Recruitment of Normal Healthy Volunteers: A Review of the Literature on the Use of Financial Incentives,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42, no. 4 (2002): 365–375;.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
see Phillips, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
Bramstedt, K. A., “Recruiting Healthy Volunteers for Research Participation via Internet Advertising,” Clinical Medicine & Research 5, no. 2 (2007): 91–97, at 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id, at 93.Google Scholar
Id, at 95–96.Google Scholar
Dickert, N. Emanuel, E. Grady, C., “Paying Research Subjects: An Analysis of Current Policies,” Annals of Internal Medicine 136, no. 5 (2002): 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IdGoogle Scholar
Grady, C., “Payment of Clinical Research Subjects,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 115, no. 7 (2005): 1181–1187, at 1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Phillips, , supra note 12, at 90.Google Scholar
Viera, A. J. Garrett, J. M., “Understanding Interobserver Agreement: The Kappa Statistic,” Family Medicine 37, no. 5 (2005): 360–363.Google Scholar
See Rothman, , supra note 6, at 90.Google Scholar
See, for example, Stark, L., “Victims in Our Own Minds? IRBs in Myth and Practice,” Law & Society Review 41, no. 4 (2007): 777–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Some paternalism might border on what Largent and colleagues call “pseudo-paternalism.” This occurs when IRBs “[prohibit] people from doing what is actually in their interests by their own reasonable lights.” See Largent, et al (2013), supra note 2, at 505.Google Scholar
Yanow, D. Schwartz-Shea, P., “Reforming Institutional Review Board Policy: Issues in Implementation and Field Research,” PS: Political Science and Politics i (2008): 483–494, at 491.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Researchers,” Federal Register 76, no. 143 (2011): 44512–44531.Google Scholar
See Stark, , supra note 33, at 783.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See FDA, supra note 4.Google Scholar
A survey conducted in the 1970s revealed that “a substantial minority of researchers felt that the review is an unwarranted intrusion on a researcher's autonomy, that IRBs get involved in inappropriate areas, that IRBs make judgments they are not qualified to make, and that IRBs impede research.” See Maloney, supra note 8, at 224.Google Scholar
For a discussion of how it was once presumed that methodological training would reduce unethical research, see Haggerty, K., “Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics,” Qualitative Sociology 27, no. 4 (2004): 391–414, at 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.107(c) (2009). See also Rothman, supra note 6, at 90.Google Scholar
See Maloney, , supra note 8, at 222.Google Scholar