For paediatric medicine to advance, research must be conducted specifically with children. Concern about poor recruitment has led to debate about payments to child research participants. Although concerns about undue influence by such ‘compensation’ have been expressed, it is useful to determine whether children can relate the time and inconvenience associated with participation to the value of payment offered. This study explores children's ability to determine fair remuneration for research participation, and reviews payments to children participating in research. Forty children were interviewed before outpatient visits at two London Hospitals: Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital and the Whittington Hospital District General Hospital. Children were asked to value their involvement in two hypothetical research scenarios – the first an ‘additional blood sample’, the second also involving daily oral oil capsules taken for a fortnight before further venesection. Background knowledge about familiarity with money, and experience with hospitalisation was assessed. The mean valuation of involvement in the second scenario (£13.18) was higher than in the first (£2.84) (p<0.001). This higher valuation persisted when children were categorised into groups ‘aged 12+’ and ‘below 12’. Those undergoing a blood test on the day placed a higher valuation on participation in the second scenario (£10.43, £21.67, p=0.044). These children aged 8–16 demonstrated the capacity to discern a fair valuation for participation in medical research. The monetary sums are influenced by the time and inconvenience involved in the research, and by the extent of recent experience with hospital procedures. The authors review current ethical thinking regarding payments to child research participants and suggest that a fair wage model might be an ethically acceptable way to increase participation of children in research.
- research ethics
- research on special populations
- policy guidelines/inst. review boards/review committees
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval South East London 3 proportionate review subcommittee of NRES.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- What constitutes a reasonable compensation for non-commercial oocyte donors: an analogy with living organ donation and medical research participation
- What makes clinical labour different? The case of human guinea pigging
- Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK
- Reification and assent in research involving those who lack capacity
- Children, Gillick competency and consent for involvement in research
- Economic impacts of overweight and obesity: current and future estimates for eight countries
- Children’s views on research without prior consent in emergency situations: a UK qualitative study
- Role of non-government organizations in engaging medical students in research
- Split views among parents regarding children’s right to decide about participation in research: a questionnaire survey
- Researching about us without us: exploring research participation and the politics of disability rights in the context of the Mental Capacity Act 2005