Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Grimwade et al highlight the current lack of a universal, standardised approach to the payment of participants taking part in controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies.1 As they discuss, payment for these studies is controversial, with many voicing arguments for and against higher payments, particularly for those studies which involve significant burdens to the participant. The main concerns about overpayment relate to the concepts of undue inducement or coercion, whereas underpayment raises concern about exploitation and unfair treatment. In many healthy volunteer trials compensation for travel, time and inconvenience are generally accepted as fair payment, but payment for risk is less accepted, with a belief that non-therapeutic studies should only incur minimal risks, so payment for risk should not be necessary.2 This paper argues that payment for risk should be included for CHIM studies. Their findings among members of the UK public and CHIM experts from a variety of centres suggest that there is support for greater risks being associated with higher payments for participants. The amount of compensation offered by a trial has to be approved by an ethics committee/institutional review board (IRB), and some research suggests that IRB members have concerns about higher payments being offered, with only approximately one-third agreeing that payment should be offered for risk.3 Without agreement and clear guidance for calculating compensation for these types of trial, there is bound to be …
Footnotes
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model
- Compensating for research risk: permissible but not obligatory
- Fair go: pay research participants properly or not at all
- On measuring attitudes about payment for research
- Payment in challenge studies from an economics perspective
- Controlled human infection with Neisseria lactamica in late pregnancy to measure horizontal transmission and microbiome changes in mother–neonate pairs: a single-arm interventional pilot study protocol
- Should practice and policy be revised to allow for risk-proportional payment to human challenge study participants?
- Protocol for the challenge non-typhoidal Salmonella (CHANTS) study: a first-in-human, in-patient, double-blind, randomised, safety and dose-escalation controlled human infection model in the UK
- S109 A seropositive SARS-CoV-2 controlled human infection model demonstrating potent protective immunity and identification of immune correlates of protection
- Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia