Human research subjects as human research workers.

Biomedical research involving human subjects has traditionally been treated as a unique endeavor, presenting special risks and demanding special protections. But in several ways, the regulatory scheme governing human subjects research is counter-intuitively less protective than the labor and employment laws applicable to many workers. This Article relies on analogical and legal reasoning to demonstrate that this should not be the case; in a number of ways, human research subjects ought to be fundamentally recast as human research workers. Like other workers protected under worklaw, biomedical research subjects often have interests that diverge from those in positions of control but little bargaining power for change. Bearing these important similarities in mind, the question becomes whether there is any good reason to treat subjects and protected workers differently as a matter of law. With regard to unrestricted payment, eligibility for a minimum wage, compensation for injury, and rights to engage in concerted activity, the answer is no and human subjects regulations ought to be revised accordingly.

Procedures of recruiting, obtaining informed consent, and compensating research participants in Qatar: findings from a qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Very few researchers have reported on procedures of recruiting, obtaining informed consent, and compensating participants in health research in the Arabian Gulf Region. Empirical research can inform the debate about whether to adjust these procedures for culturally diverse settings. Our objective was to delineate procedures related to recruiting, obtaining informed consent, and compensating health research participants in the extremely high-density multicultural setting of Qatar. METHODS: During a multistage mixed methods project, field observations and qualitative interviews were conducted in a general medicine clinic of a major medical center in Qatar. Participants were chosen based on gender, age, literacy, and preferred language, i.e., Arabic, English, Hindi and Urdu. Qualitative analysis identified themes about recruitment, informed consent, compensation, and other research procedures. RESULTS: A total of 153 individuals were approached and 84 enrolled; the latter showed a diverse age range (18 to 75 years); varied language representation: Arabic (n = 24), English (n = 20), Hindi (n = 20), and Urdu (n = 20); and balanced gender distribution: women (n = 43) and men (n = 41). Primary reasons for 30 declinations included concern about interview length and recording. The study achieved a 74% participation rate. Qualitative analytics revealed key themes about hesitation to participate, decisions about participation with family members as well as discussions with them as "incidental research participants", the informed consent process, privacy and gender rules of the interview environment, reactions to member checking and compensation, and motivation for participating. Vulnerability emerged as a recurring issue throughout the process among a minority of participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study from Qatar is the first to provide empirical data on recruitment, informed consent, compensation and other research procedures in a general adult population in the Middle East and Arabian Gulf. This investigation illustrates how potential research participants perceive research participation. Fundamentally, Western ethical research principles were applicable, but required flexibility and culturally informed adaptations.

New rules for clinical trial-related injury and compensation.

The rules for compensation for injury and death in clinical trials have recently been notified. These rules clarify that medical management of all injuries in clinical trials is mandatory and in cases in which injury or death is related to the clinical trial, the subject (or nominee) is entitled to compensation over and above the medical management. They also specify procedures and timelines for reporting serious adverse events. These require simplification. The rules will hopefully make clinical trial safer for subjects and investigators alike. However, they suffer from certain inconsistencies that should be reconsidered. They need to be modified so that they do not damage the industry.

Concordance between self-report and urine drug screen data in adolescent opioid dependent clinical trial participants.

Objective measures of drug use are very important in treatment outcome studies of persons with substance use disorders, but obtaining and interpreting them can be challenging and not always practical. Thus, it is important to determine if, and when, drug-use self-reports are valid. To this end we explored the relationships between urine drug screen results and self-reported substance use among adolescents and young adults with opioid dependence participating in a clinical trial of buprenorphine-naloxone. In this study, 152 individuals seeking treatment for opioid dependence were randomized to a 2-week detoxification with buprenorphine-naloxone (DETOX) or 12weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP), each with weekly individual and group drug counseling. Urine drug screens and self-reported frequency of drug use were obtained weekly, and patients were paid $5 for completing weekly assessments. At weeks 4, 8, and 12, more extensive assessments were done, and participants were reimbursed $75. Self-report data were dichotomized (positive vs. negative), and for each major drug class we computed the kappa statistic and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of self-report using urine drug screens as the "gold standard". Generalized linear mixed models were used to explore the effect of treatment group assignment, compensation amounts, and participant characteristics on self-report. In general, findings supported the validity of self-reported drug use. However, those in the BUP group were more likely to under-report cocaine and opioid use. Therefore, if used alone, self-report would have magnified the treatment effect of the BUP condition.

Do patients who take part in stroke research differ from non-participants? Implications for generalizability of results.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the most disabling neurological conditions. Clinical research is vital for expanding knowledge of treatment effectiveness among stroke patients. However, evidence begins to accumulate that stroke patients who take part in research represent only a small proportion of all stroke patients. Research participants may also differ from the broader patient population in ways that could potentially distort treatment effects reported in therapeutic trials. The aims of this study were to estimate the proportion of stroke patients who take part in clinical research studies and to compare demographic and clinical profiles of research participants and non-participants. METHODS: 5,235 consecutive patients admitted to the Stroke Care Unit of the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, for stroke or transient ischaemic attack between January 2004 and December 2011 were studied. The study used cross-sectional design. Information was collected on patients' demographic and socio-economic characteristics, risk factors, and comorbidities. Associations between research participation and patient characteristics were initially assessed using χ(2) or Mann-Whitney tests, followed by a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The logistic regression analysis was carried out using generalised estimating equations approach, to account for patient readmissions during the study period. RESULTS: 558 Stroke Care Unit patients (10.7%) took part in at least one of the 33 clinical research studies during the study period. Transfer from another hospital (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.55), worse premorbid function (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.70), being single (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84) or widowed (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.99), non-English language (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.85), high socio-economic status (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.93), residence outside Melbourne (OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95), weekend admission (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.94), and a history of atrial fibrillation (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99) were associated with lower odds of research participation. A history of hypertension (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.08-2.07) and current smoking (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.50) on the other hand were associated with higher odds of research participation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that stroke patients who take part in clinical research do not represent 'typical' patient admitted to a stroke unit. The imbalance of prognostic factors between stroke participants and non-participants has serious implications for interpretation of research findings reported in stroke literature. This study provides insights into clinical, demographic, and socio-economic characteristics of stroke patients that could potentially be targeted to enhance generalizability of stroke research studies. Given the imbalance of prognostic factors between research participants and non-participants, future studies need to examine differences in stroke outcomes of these groups of patients.

Challenges for consent and community engagement in the conduct of cluster randomized trial among school children in low income settings: experiences from Kenya.

BACKGROUND: There are a number of practical and ethical issues raised in school-based health research, particularly those related to obtaining consent from parents and assent from children. One approach to developing, strengthening, and supporting appropriate consent and assent processes is through community engagement. To date, much of the literature on community engagement in biomedical research has concentrated on community- or hospital-based research, with little documentation, if any, of community engagement in school-based health research. In this paper we discuss our experiences of consent, assent and community engagement in implementing a large school-based cluster randomized trial in rural Kenya. METHODS: Data collected as part of a qualitative study investigating the acceptability of the main trial, focus group discussions with field staff, observations of practice and authors' experiences are used to: 1) highlight the challenges faced in obtaining assent/consent; and 2) strategies taken to try to both protect participant rights (including to refuse and to withdraw) and ensure the success of the trial. RESULTS: Early meetings with national, district and local level stakeholders were important in establishing their co-operation and support for the project. Despite this support, both practical and ethical challenges were encountered during consenting and assenting procedures. Our strategy for addressing these challenges focused on improving communication and understanding of the trial, and maintaining dialogue with all the relevant stakeholders throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: A range of stakeholders within and beyond schools play a key role in school based health trials. Community entry and information dissemination strategies need careful planning from the outset, and with on-going consultation and feedback mechanisms established in order to identify and address concerns as they arise. We believe our experiences, and the ethical and practical issues and dilemmas encountered, will be of interest for others planning to conduct school-based research in Africa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institute of Health NCT00878007.

Patient income level and cancer clinical trial participation.

PURPOSE: Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ≥ 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.

Misconceptions about coercion and undue influence: reflections on the views of IRB members.

Payment to recruit research subjects is a common practice but raises ethical concerns relating to the potential for coercion or undue influence. We conducted the first national study of IRB members and human subjects protection professionals to explore attitudes as to whether and why payment of research participants constitutes coercion or undue influence. Upon critical evaluation of the cogency of ethical concerns regarding payment, as reflected in our survey results, we found expansive or inconsistent views about coercion and undue influence that may interfere with valuable research. In particular, respondents appear to believe that coercion and undue influence lie on a continuum; by contrast, we argue that they are wholly distinct: whereas undue influence is a cognitive distortion relating to assessment of risks and benefits, coercion is a threat of harm. Because payment is an offer, rather than a threat, payment is never coercive.

Payment of research participants: current practice and policies of Irish research ethics committees.

BACKGROUND: Payment of research participants helps to increase recruitment for research studies, but can pose ethical dilemmas. Research ethics committees (RECs) have a centrally important role in guiding this practice, but standardisation of the ethical approval process in Ireland is lacking. AIM: Our aim was to examine REC policies, experiences and concerns with respect to the payment of participants in research projects in Ireland. METHOD: Postal survey of all RECs in Ireland. RESULTS: Response rate was 62.5% (n=50). 80% of RECs reported not to have any established policy on the payment of research subjects while 20% had refused ethics approval to studies because the investigators proposed to pay research participants. The most commonly cited concerns were the potential for inducement and undermining of voluntary consent. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability among RECs on the payment of research participants and a lack of clear consensus guidelines on the subject. The development of standardised guidelines on the payment of research subjects may enhance recruitment of research participants.

Relative efficacy of cash versus vouchers in engaging opioid substitution treatment clients in survey-based research.

Concerns that cash payments to people who inject drugs (PWID) to reimburse research participation will facilitate illicit drug purchases have led some ethical authorities to mandate department store/supermarket vouchers as research reimbursement. To examine the relative efficacy of the two forms of reimbursement in engaging PWID in research, clients of two public opioid substitution therapy clinics were invited to participate in a 20-30 min, anonymous and confidential interview about alcohol consumption on two separate occasions, 4 months apart. Under the crossover design, at Time 1, clients of Clinic 1 were offered $A20 cash as reimbursement, while clients of Clinic 2 were offered an $A20 voucher; at Time 2, the form of reimbursement was reversed. Using clinic records to determine the denominator (number of clients dosed), we found that compared with clients offered a voucher, a significantly higher proportion of clients who were offered cash participated in the survey (58% (139/241) vs 74% (186/252); χ(2)=14.27; p=0.0002). At first participation, respondents most commonly reported planning to purchase food/drinks/groceries (68%), cigarettes (21%) and transport/fuel (11%) with their payments, with those reimbursed in cash more likely to report planning to fund transport/fuel (19% vs 1%; p<.01) and less likely to report planning to purchase food/drinks/groceries (62% vs 76%; p=0.02). Just three out of 155 cash participants reported planning to purchase illicit drugs with their payment. Results demonstrate that modest cash payments enhanced recruitment of this group, an important consideration given the challenges of delineating the parameters of a population defined by illegal activity, seemingly without promoting excessive additional drug use.

Is payment a benefit?

What I call 'the standard view' claims that IRBs should not regard financial payment as a benefit to subjects for the purpose of risk/benefit assessment. Although the standard view is universally accepted, there is little defense of that view in the canonical documents of research ethics or the scholarly literature. This paper claims that insofar as IRBs should be concerned with the interests and autonomy of research subjects, they should reject the standard view and adopt 'the incorporation view.' The incorporation view is more consistent with the underlying soft-paternalist justification for risk-benefit assessment and demonstrates respect for the autonomy of prospective subjects. Adoption of the standard view precludes protocols that advance the interests of subjects, investigators, and society. After considering several objections to the argument, I consider several arguments for the standard view that do not appeal to the interests and autonomy of research subjects.

Expanding the frame of "voluntariness" in informed consent: structural coercion and the power of social and economic context.

This paper introduces the term "structural coercion" to underscore the ways in which broader social, economic, and political contexts act upon individuals to compel them to enroll as subjects in clinical research. The paper challenges the adequacy of the concepts of "coercion" and "undue influence" in determining when research participation is voluntary. Acknowledging structural coercion shifts the frame of ethical deliberation away from specific individuals and specific studies to see important patterns in research participation by salient demographic characteristics. The effects of structural coercion manifest themselves in particular research settings, but unlike the conventional form of coercion, it is not rooted in the researcher-participant relationship or linked to particular study protocols. By extracting voluntariness from entrenched conceptions of the researcher-participant dyad, this paper proposes approaches to minimize the effects of structural coercion while creating new ethical imaginaries for review boards and researchers alike.