scholarly journals Could providing financial incentives to research participants be ultimately self-defeating?

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
TL Zutlevics
Keyword(s):  
Intrinsic Motivation ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Individual

Controversy over providing financial incentives to research participants has a long history and remains an issue of contention in both current discussions about research ethics and for institutional review bodies/human research ethics committees which are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether such incentives fall within ethical guidelines. The arguments both for and against financial incentives have been well aired in the literature. A point of agreement for many is that inducement in the form of financial incentive is permissible when the risk of harm to the individual is negligible in terms of degree and probability of occurrence. In the absence of harm to the individual, encouraging more people to participate in research would appear to be a good thing in so far as it will lead to statistically more robust research outcomes, which can then be translated into better healthcare and other practice. Whilst, on the face of it, this position seems highly defensible, I will explore the possibility that it is counterproductive – that is, providing individuals with financial incentives to become research participants may have the unintended outcome of reducing participation rates in some areas of research. In exploring this idea I will draw on empirical findings from the literature on crowding-out – the hypothesis that providing monetary incentives to people can backfire by overall reducing intrinsic motivation, in this instance intrinsic motivation to behave altruistically or undertake civic duties.

scholarly journals Ethical concerns in suicide research: thematic analysis of the views of human research ethics committees in Australia

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Barnard ◽  
Georgia Dempster ◽  
Karolina Krysinska ◽  
Lennart Reifels ◽  
Jo Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Human Research Ethics

Abstract Background Suicide research aims to contribute to a better understanding of suicidal behaviour and its prevention. However, there are many ethical challenges in this research field, for example, regarding consent and potential risks to participants. While studies to-date have focused on the perspective of the researchers, this study aimed to investigate the views and experiences of members of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in dealing with suicide-related study applications. Methods This qualitative study entailed a thematic analysis using an inductive approach. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample (N = 15) of HREC Chairs or their delegates from Australian research-intensive universities. The interview guide included questions regarding the ethical concerns and challenges in suicide-related research raised by HREC members, how they dealt with those challenges and what advice they could give to researchers. Results The analysis identified four main themes: (1) HREC members’ experiences of reviewing suicide-related study applications, (2) HREC members’ perceptions of suicide, suicide research, and study participants, (3) Complexity in HREC members’ decision-making processes, and (4) HREC members’ relationships with researchers. Conclusions Reliance on ethical guidelines and dialogue with researchers are crucial in the assessment of suicide-related study applications. Both researchers and HREC members may benefit from guidance and resources on how to conduct ethically sound suicide-related studies. Developing working relationships will be likely to help HRECs to facilitate high quality, ethical suicide-related research and researchers to conduct such research.

Confidence of IRB/REC Members in Their Assessments of Human Research Risk: A Study of IRB/REC Decision Making in Action

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 140-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick Grinnell ◽  
John Z. Sadler ◽  
Victoria McNamara ◽  
Kristen Senetar ◽  
Joan Reisch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Environmental Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Risk Benefit Assessment

Understanding how institutional review boards/research ethics committees (IRBs/RECs) perform risk/benefit assessment is important to help improve their function. In environmental ethics, uncertainty about potential outcomes and the precautionary principle play important roles in regulatory oversight but have received little attention in the context of human research ethics. We carried out an empirical study to gain insight into uncertainty by asking IRB/REC members about confidence in their risk assessments immediately after discussion of new protocols under review. Based on 12 meetings carried out by four IRBs/RECs over a 6-month period, we found a robust, inverse relationship between risk and confidence. As risk increased, confidence decreased. We detected different patterns of consensus between different IRBs/RECs and their members. Our study introduces a novel and relatively easy to implement approach to begin to understand IRB/REC decision making in real time that can be used within or across institutions.

Differences between research ethics committees

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. L. Edwards ◽  
Tracey Stone ◽  
Teresa Swift
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Local Conditions ◽  
Ethical Judgments ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review

Objectives:To examine differences in the ethical judgments made by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).Methods:We did a review of the literature and included any study that attempted to compare the ethical judgments made by different RECs or IRBs when reviewing one or more protocol.Results:There were twenty-six articles reporting such discrepancies across Europe, within the United Kingdom, Spain, and United States. Of these studies, there were only five reports of some RECs approving while others rejecting the same protocol. All studies, however, reported differences in the clarifications and revisions asked of researchers regarding consent, recruitment, risks and benefits, compensation arrangements, and scientific issues.Conclusions:The studies were generally anecdotal reports of researchers trying to do research. New rules requiring a single ethical opinion for multi-site research at least in European Member States may simply conceal problematic issues in REC decision making. In the last analysis, we should expect a certain degree of variation and differences if we are to keep a committee system of review, although there is a pressing need to investigate the way in which RECs make these judgments. In particular, we need to identify the source of any aberrations, distortions, or confusions that could arbitrarily affect these judgments. Furthermore, local conditions remain important ethical considerations and should not be sidelined in pursuit of greater “consistency.”

scholarly journals Ethical complexities in child co-research

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merle Spriggs ◽  
Lynn Gillam
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Children’S Agency ◽  
New Findings ◽  
Need For Support ◽  
And Training

Child co-research has become popular in social research involving children. This is attributed to the emphasis on children’s rights and is seen as a way to promote children’s agency and voice. It is a way of putting into practice the philosophy, common amongst childhood researchers, that children are experts on childhood. In this article, we discuss ethical complexities of involving children as co-researchers, beginning with an analysis of the literature, then drawing on data from interviews with researchers who conduct child co-research. We identify six ethical complexities, some of which are new findings which have not been mentioned before in this context. In light of these possible ethical complexities, a key finding is for researchers to be reflexive – to reflect on how the research may affect child co-researchers and participants before the research starts. A separate overriding message that came out in responses from the researchers we interviewed was the need for support and training for child co-researchers. We conclude by providing a list of questions for reflexive researchers to ask of themselves when they use child co-research methodology. We also provide important questions for human research ethics committees to ask when they review projects using child co-research.

Human research ethics committees members: ethical review personal perceptions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Handal ◽  
Chris Campbell ◽  
Kevin Watson ◽  
Marguerite Maher ◽  
Keagan Brewer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Personal Perceptions

scholarly journals Heterogeneity of Human Research Ethics Committees and Research Governance Offices across Australia: An observational study

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth De Smit ◽  
Lisa Kearns ◽  
Linda Clarke ◽  
Jonathan Dick ◽  
Catharine Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Human Research Ethics

Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Truman
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
Community Mental Health Service ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Research Production ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Ethical Approval

The role of research ethics committees has expanded across the UK and North America and the process of ethical review has become re-institutionalised under proposals for research governance proposed by government. Ethics committees have gained a powerful role as gatekeepers within the research process. Underpinning the re-constitution of ethical guidelines and research governance, are a range of measures which protect institutional interests, without necessarily providing an effective means to address the moral obligations and responsibilities of researchers in relation to the production of social research. Discussion of research ethics from the standpoint of research participants who in this paper, are service users within health and social care, provides a useful dimension to current debate. In this paper I draw upon experiences of gaining ethical approval for a research study which focused on user participation within a community mental health service. I discuss the strategies used to gain ethical approval and the ‘formal concerns’ raised by the ethics committee. I then describe and discuss ethical issues which emerged from a participants’ perspective during the actual research as it was carried out. These experiences are analysed using aspects of institutional ethnography which provides a framework to explore how the experiences of research participants are mediated by texts which govern the processes of research production. The paper highlights incongruities between the formal ethical regulation of research, and the experiences of research participants in relation to ethical concerns within a research process.

scholarly journals Ethical Guidelines for Publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle Clinical Reports

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Von Haehling ◽  
Nicole Ebner ◽  
John E Morley ◽  
Andrew JS Coats ◽  
Stefan D Anker
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Abstract Form ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Ethical Authorship ◽  
Available Information

AbstractThis article details the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle Clinical Reports (JCSM Clinical Reports). At the time of submission to JCSM Clinical Reports, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are obtained below: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) publication as provided to JCSM Clinical Reports;No person having a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript;The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor has it been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form;All authors certify that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before these other publications must be referenced;All original research work are approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees;All conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript;The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM Clinical Reports as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true; andIf any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM Clinical Reports as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

Should Research Ethics Committees Be Observing the Law or Working by Ethical Principles?

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Warlow
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Individual Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Individual

Recent laws, and their interpretation, have made clinical research more difficult to do, and sometimes impossible. Furthermore the results of that research which can be done may even be unreliable. This is certainly against the public interest, and indeed the individual patient interest as well. But ethics committees have to abide by the law and so even though it is surely unethical to work against the public and individual interest that is exactly what ethics committees now have to endorse. The unintended consequences of the new regulations must be reduced by amending the law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document