Paying Research Subjects: An Analysis of Current Policies

5 March 2002 | Volume 136 Issue 5 | Pages 368-373

Background: Few data are available on guidelines used by research organizations to make decisions about paying subjects.

Objective: To analyze existing guidance regarding payment of research subjects and to identify common characteristics and areas for further research.

Design: Descriptive content analysis of policies.

Measurements: Written policies and rules of thumb about paying subjects from 32 U.S. research organizations.

Results: Of 32 organizations, 37.5% had written guidelines about paying subjects; all but 1 reported having rules of thumb. Few (18.8%) were able to provide a confident estimate of the proportion of studies that pay subjects. Organizations reported that investigators and institutional review boards make payment decisions and that both healthy and ill subjects in some studies are paid for their time (87%), for inconvenience (84%), for travel (68%), as incentive (58%), or for incurring risk (32%). Most organizations require that payment be prorated (84%) and described in the consent document (94%).

Conclusions: Most organizations pay some research subjects, but few have written policies on payment. Because investigators and institutional review boards make payment decisions with little specific guidance, standards vary.

Editors' Notes Context Many investigators pay research subjects. Paying research subjects could inappropriately influence them to participate in studies. We know little about how research organizations handle payment of research subjects. Contribution This survey of 9 academic centers, 7 pharmaceutical companies, 8 contract research organizations, and 8 independent institutional review boards showed that most paid subjects but few had formal policies to guide the amount or circumstances of payment. Policy Implications Without standard policies for paying research subjects, there are uncertain safeguards against unfair or coercive payment. It is uncertain whether the organizations that participated are representative of all research organizations in the United States. —The Editors

 

Author and Article Information

From W.G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the help and involvement of the representatives of participating organizations. They also thank persons who reviewed the manuscript. Names of these persons are not included to protect the confidentiality of participating organizations.

Grant Support: By W.G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health.

Requests for Single Reprints: Christine Grady, PhD, Department of Clinical Bioethics, W.G. Magnuson Clinical Center, Building 10/1C118, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1156; e-mail, cgrady{at}nih.gov.

Current Author Addresses: Mr. Dickert: 2626 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21224.

Drs. Emanuel and Grady: Department of Clinical Bioethics, W.G. Magnuson Clinical Center, Building 10/1C118, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1156.

Author Contributions: Conception and design: E. Emanuel, C. Grady.

Analysis and interpretation of the data: N. Dickert, E. Emanuel, C. Grady.

Drafting of the article: N. Dickert, E. Emanuel, C. Grady.

Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: N. Dickert, E. Emanuel, C. Grady.

Obtaining of funding: C. Grady.

Collection and assembly of data: N. Dickert, C. Grady.