Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Payment for research participation has raised ethical concerns, especially with respect to its potential for coercion. We argue that characterising payment for research participation as coercive is misguided, because offers of benefit cannot constitute coercion. In this article we analyse the concept of coercion, refute mistaken conceptions of coercion and explain why the offer of payment for research participation is never coercive but in some cases may produce undue inducement.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, the Public Health Service or the Department of Health and Human Services.
Other content recommended for you
- Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model
- Payment of research participants: current practice and policies of Irish research ethics committees
- How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence
- The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process
- Paying research participants: a study of current practices in Australia
- For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies
- Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy
- Analysis of the status of informed consent in medical research involving human subjects in public hospitals in Shanghai
- Compensating for research risk: permissible but not obligatory
- Payment for participation in research: a pursuit for the poor?