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. (shrink)

Objectives: Clinical trials in humans in Germany—as in many other countries—must be approved by local research ethics committees . The current study has been designed to document and evaluate decisions of chairpersons of RECs in the problematic field of non-therapeutic research with minors. The authors’ purpose was to examine whether non-therapeutic research was acceptable for chairpersons at all, and whether there was certainty on how to decide in research trials involving more than minimal risk.Design: In a questionnaire, REC chairpersons had (...) to evaluate five different scenarios with non-therapeutic research. The scenarios described realistic potential research projects with minors, involving increasing levels of risk for the research participants. The chairpersons had to decide whether the respective projects should be approved.Methods: A total of 49 German REC chairpersons were sent questionnaires; 29 questionnaires were returned. The main measurements were approval or rejection of research scenarios.Results: Chairpersons of German RECs generally tend to accept non-therapeutic research with minors if the apparent risk for the participating children is low. If the risk is clearly higher than “minimal”, the chairpersons’ decisions differ widely.Conclusion: The fact that there seem to be different attitudes of chairpersons to non-therapeutic research with minors is problematic from an ethical point of view. It suggests a general uncertainty about the standards of protection for minor research participants in Germany. Therefore, further ethical and legal regulation of non-therapeutic research with minors in Germany seems necessary. (shrink)

This article examines when deceptive withholding of information is ethically acceptable in research. The first half analyses the concept of deception. We argue that there are two types of accounts of deception: normative and non-normative, and argue that non-normative accounts are preferable. The second half of the article argues that the relevant ethical question which ethics committees should focus on is not whether the person from whom the information is withheld will be deceived, but rather on the reasonableness of withholding (...) the information from the person who is deceived. We further argue that the reasonableness of withholding information is dependent on the context. The last section examines how the context of research should shape our judgements about the circumstances in which withholding information from research participants is ethically acceptable. We argue that some important features of research make it more difficult to justify withholding information in the context of research than elsewhere. (shrink)

A placebo is a substance or intervention believed to be inactive, but is administered by the healthcare professional as if it was an active medication. Unlike standard treatments, clinical use of placebo usually involves deception and is therefore ethically problematic. Our attitudes toward the clinical use of placebo, which inevitably includes deception or withholding information, have a tremendous effect on our practice regarding truth-telling and informed consent. A casual attitude towards it weakens the current practice based on shared decision-making and (...) mutual trust between patients and healthcare professionals. Issues concerning the clinical use of placebo are thus intimately related to patient-provider relationships, the public's trust in medicine, and medical education. A review of recent survey studies suggests that the clinical use of placebo appears to be fairly well accepted among healthcare professionals and is common in clinical settings in various countries. However, we think that an ethical discussion is urgently needed because of its controversial nature. If judged to be ethically wrong, the practice should end. In the present paper, we discuss the ethicality of the clinical use of placebo with deception and argue against it, concluding that it is unethical and should be banned. We will show that most arguments in favor of the clinical use of placebo can be refuted and are therefore incorrect or weak. These arguments will be presented and examined individually. Finally, we will briefly consider issues relevant to the clinical use of placebo without deception. (shrink)

Opposition to inducement payments for research subjects is an international orthodoxy amongst writers of ethics committee guidelines. We offer an argument in favour of these payments. We also critically evaluate the best arguments we can find or devise against such payments, and except in one very limited range of circumstances, we find these unconvincing.

Recent decades have seen a proliferation of research methods, both quantitative and qualitative, available to psychologists. Whereas some scholars have claimed that qualitative and quantitative methods are inherently opposed, recently many more researchers have argued in favor of “mixed methods” approaches. In this article the author presents a review of the literature on the issue of how to meaningfully relate qualitative and quantitative approaches, with a particular emphasis on recent calls for mixed methods. The relative success of mixed-methods approaches is (...) examined, and some of the common pitfalls of these approaches are outlined. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

To give valid informed consent to participate in clinical research, potential participants should understand the risks, potential benefits, procedures, and alternatives. Potential participants also should understand that they are being invited to participate in research. Yet it is unclear what potential participants need to understand to satisfy this particular requirement. As a result, it is unclear what additional information investigators should disclose about the research; and it is also unclear when failures of understanding in this respect undermine the validity of (...) potential participants' informed consent. An analysis of individuals' interests suggests that potential participants need to understand three additional facts to understand that they are being invited to participate in research: 1) research contribution: those who enroll in the study will be contributing to a project designed to gather generalizable knowledge to benefit others in the future; 2) research relationship: the investigators will rely on participants' efforts to gather the generalizable knowledge to benefit others; and 3) research impact: the extent to which participating in the study will alter what participants do and what happens to them. (shrink)

The first consideration of any Australian Human Research Ethics Committee should be to satisfy itself that the project before them is worth undertaking. If the project does not add to the body of knowledge, if it does not improve social welfare or individual wellbeing then the use of human participants, their tissue or their data must be questioned. Sometimes, however, committees are criticised for appearing to adopt the role of scientific review committees. The intent of this paper is to provide (...) researchers with an understanding of the ethical importance of demonstrating the merit of their research project and to help them develop protocols that show ethics committees that adequate attention has been paid to this central tenet in dealing ethically with human research participants. Any person proposing human research must be prepared to show that it is worthwhile. This paper will clarify the relationship between research merit and integrity, research ethics and the responsibilities of human research ethics committees. (shrink)

It is difficult to consider, describe or address the ethical issues particular to qualitative research without experience and understanding of the technicalities of qualitative methodologies. The Australian National Statement on the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans charges researchers with a responsibility to demonstrate that they have the appropriate experience, qualifications and competence for their proposed research. Ethical review committees have the responsibility to judge claimed research competence. This article provides practical guidance to researchers and review committees on using formal (...) qualifications and training, explicit claims of competence, and markers of in/competence to assess qualitative research competence. (shrink)

This paper argues against paying people to participate in research. Volunteering to participate as a subject in a research program is not like taking a job. The main difference is to do with the risks inherent in research. Experimentation on human beings is, by definition, trying out something with an unknown consequence and exposes people to risks of harm which cannot be known in advance. This is the main reason for independent review by committee of research programs. It is based (...) on a recognition that researchers are not always capable of putting the interests of their subjects ahead of their research objectives. It is not simply a matter of individual autonomy. Society has an obligation, prior to the protection of individual freedom and autonomy, to establish basic safeguards that are equitable in their operation. Any inducement for participating in research would add to the difficulty subjects have in adequately assessing the risks of participating in research. An acceptance of inducement to participate in research would further increase the inequity of research conducted on the impecunious for the benefit of the well‐off. (shrink)

Objectives: There are indications that institutional review board members do not find it easy to assess the risks and benefits in medical experiments, although this is their principal duty. This study examined how IRB members assessed the risk/benefit ratio of a specific phase II breast cancer clinical trial.Participants and methods: The trial was evaluated by means of a questionnaire administered to 43 members of IRBs at six academic hospitals and specialised cancer centres in the Netherlands. The questionnaire addressed: identification and (...) estimation of inconvenience, toxicity, psychosocial distress, and benefits of trial participation to patients; identification and estimation of benefits to future patients and medical science; assessment of the trial’s RBR; and assessment of its ethical acceptability.Results: Most IRB members expected trial participation to involve fairly or very serious inconvenience, fairly severe to sometimes life-threatening toxicity, and serious psychological and social consequences. Conversely, the perceived likelihood of benefits to patients was modest. Most regarded the study as important, and the balance between risks and benefits to be favourable, and believed that the protocol should be approved. The IRB members’ final judgement on the trial’s ethical acceptability was significantly correlated with their RBR assessment of the protocol.Conclusions: Because most patients who participate in clinical trials hope this will prolong their lives, it is suggested that patient information should better describe the anticipated benefits—for example, the likelihood of prolonging life. This would allow patients to make decisions regarding participation based on realistic expectations. (shrink)