Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. How Payment For Research Participation Can Be Coercive.Joseph Millum & Michael Garnett - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (9):21-31.
    The idea that payment for research participation can be coercive appears widespread among research ethics committee members, researchers, and regulatory bodies. Yet analysis of the concept of coercion by philosophers and bioethicists has mostly concluded that payment does not coerce, because coercion necessarily involves threats, not offers. In this article we aim to resolve this disagreement by distinguishing between two distinct but overlapping concepts of coercion. Consent-undermining coercion marks out certain actions as impermissible and certain agreements as unenforceable. By contrast, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • Uninformed Consent? The Effect of Participant Characteristics and Delivery Format on Informed Consent.Kyle R. Ripley, Margaret A. Hance, Stacey A. Kerr, Lauren E. Brewer & Kyle E. Conlon - 2018 - Ethics and Behavior 28 (7):517-543.
    Although many people choose to sign consent forms and participate in research, how many thoroughly read a consent form before signing it? Across 3 experiments using 348 undergraduate student participants, we examined whether personality characteristics as well as consent form content, format, and delivery method were related to thorough reading. Students repeatedly failed to read the consent forms, although small effects were found favoring electronic delivery methods and traditional format forms. Potential explanations are discussed and include participant apathy, participants trying (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A Living Wage for Research Subjects.Trisha B. Phillips - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (2):243-253.
    Offering cash payments to research subjects is a common recruiting method, but this practice continues to be controversial because of its potential to compromise the protection of human subjects. Some critics question whether researchers should be allowed to offer money at all, citing concerns about commodification of the research subject, invalidation of study results, and increased risks to subjects. Other critics are comfortable with the idea of monetary payments but question how much researchers can pay their subjects, citing concerns about (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. [REVIEW]Adam Nishimura, Jantey Carey, Patricia J. Erwin, Jon C. Tilburt, M. Hassan Murad & Jennifer B. McCormick - 2013 - BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):28.
    Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone of biomedical research, yet participants comprehension of presented information is often low. The most effective interventions to improve understanding rates have not been identified.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   57 citations  
  • Clinical research: Should patients pay to play?Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Steven Joffe, Christine Grady, David Wendler & Govind Persad - 2015 - Science Translational Medicine 7 (298):298ps16.
    We argue that charging people to participate in research is likely to undermine the fundamental ethical bases of clinical research, especially the principles of social value, scientific validity, and fair subject selection.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Avoiding Exploitation in Phase I Clinical Trials: More than (Un)Just Compensation.Matt Lamkin & Carl Elliott - 2018 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 46 (1):52-63.
    Lowering compensation to research subjects to protect them from “undue inducement” is a misguided attempt to shoehorn a concern about exploitation into the framework of autonomy. We suggest that oversight bodies should be less concerned about undue influence than about exploitation of subjects. Avoiding exploitation in human subjects research requires not only increasing compensation, but enhancing the dignity of research participation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Picking and Choosing Among Phase I Trials: A Qualitative Examination of How Healthy Volunteers Understand Study Risks.Jill A. Fisher, Torin Monahan & Rebecca L. Walker - 2019 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 16 (4):535-549.
    This article empirically examines how healthy volunteers evaluate and make sense of the risks of phase I clinical drug trials. This is an ethically important topic because healthy volunteers are exposed to risk but can gain no medical benefit from their trial participation. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews with 178 healthy volunteers enrolled in various clinical trials, we found that participants focus on myriad characteristics of clinical trials when assessing risk and making enrolment decisions. These factors include the short-term and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Picking and Choosing Among Phase I Trials: A Qualitative Examination of How Healthy Volunteers Understand Study Risks.Jill A. Fisher, Torin Monahan & Rebecca L. Walker - 2019 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 16 (4):535-549.
    This article empirically examines how healthy volunteers evaluate and make sense of the risks of phase I clinical drug trials. This is an ethically important topic because healthy volunteers are exposed to risk but can gain no medical benefit from their trial participation. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews with 178 healthy volunteers enrolled in various clinical trials, we found that participants focus on myriad characteristics of clinical trials when assessing risk and making enrolment decisions. These factors include the short-term and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Picking and Choosing Among Phase I Trials: A Qualitative Examination of How Healthy Volunteers Understand Study Risks.Jill A. Fisher, Torin Monahan & Rebecca L. Walker - 2019 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 16 (4):535-549.
    This article empirically examines how healthy volunteers evaluate and make sense of the risks of phase I clinical drug trials. This is an ethically important topic because healthy volunteers are exposed to risk but can gain no medical benefit from their trial participation. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews with 178 healthy volunteers enrolled in various clinical trials, we found that participants focus on myriad characteristics of clinical trials when assessing risk and making enrolment decisions. These factors include the short-term and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Comprehension of Online Informed Consents: Can It Be Improved?Nikolina M. Duvall Antonacopoulos & Ralph C. Serin - 2016 - Ethics and Behavior 26 (3):177-193.
    This study examined possible ways to ensure that participants provide fully informed consent for online surveys. Participants were randomly assigned to read either a traditional informed consent or one of three modified versions: enhanced, consent for each key element, or a combination of these two. Those who read the combination version scored higher on a comprehension quiz, guessed at fewer questions, and were more likely to read all of the informed consent than those who received the traditional version. These findings (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations