Evaluating the Impact of Incentives on Clinical Trial Participation: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Community-Engaged Study

Jerome T Galea, Karah Y Greene, Brandon Nguyen, Andrea N Polonijo, Karine Dubé, Jeff Taylor, Christopher Christensen, Zhiwei Zhang, Brandon Brown, Jerome T Galea, Karah Y Greene, Brandon Nguyen, Andrea N Polonijo, Karine Dubé, Jeff Taylor, Christopher Christensen, Zhiwei Zhang, Brandon Brown

Abstract

Background: Monetary incentives in research are frequently used to support participant recruitment and retention. However, there are scant empirical data regarding how researchers decide upon the type and amount of incentives offered. Likewise, there is little guidance to assist study investigators and institutional review boards (IRBs) in their decision-making on incentives. Monetary incentives, in addition to other factors such as the risk of harm or other intangible benefits, guide individuals' decisions to enroll in research studies. These factors emphasize the need for evidence-informed guidance for study investigators and IRBs when determining the type and amount of incentives to provide to research participants.

Objective: The specific aims of our research project are to (1) characterize key stakeholders' views on and assessments of incentives in biomedical HIV research; (2) reach consensus among stakeholders on the factors that are considered when choosing research incentives, including consensus on the relative importance of such factors; and (3) pilot-test the use of the guidance developed via aims 1 and 2 by presenting stakeholders with vignettes of hypothetical research studies for which they will choose corresponding incentive types.

Methods: Our 2-year study will involve monthly, active engagement with a stakeholder advisory board of people living with HIV, researchers, and IRB members. For aim 1, we will conduct a nationwide survey (N=300) among people living with HIV to understand their views regarding the incentives used in HIV research. For aim 2, we will collect qualitative data by conducting focus groups with people living with HIV (n=60) and key informant interviews with stakeholders involved in HIV research (people living with HIV, IRB members, and biomedical HIV researchers: n=36) to extend and deepen our understanding of how incentives in HIV research are perceived. These participants will also complete a conjoint analysis experiment to gain an understanding of the relative importance of key HIV research study attributes and the impact that these attributes have on study participation. The data from the nationwide survey (aim 1) will be triangulated with the qualitative and conjoint analysis data (aim 2) to create 25 vignettes that describe hypothetical HIV research studies. Finally, individuals from each stakeholder group will select the most appropriate incentive that they feel should be used in each of the 25 vignettes (aim 3).

Results: The stakeholder advisory board began monthly meetings in March 2021. All study aims are expected to be completed by December 2022.

Conclusions: By studying the role of incentives in HIV clinical trial participation, we will establish a decision-making paradigm to guide the choice of incentives for HIV research and, eventually, other types of similar research and facilitate the ethical recruitment of clinical research participants.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04809636; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04809636.

International registered report identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/33608.

Keywords: HIV; ethics; incentives; research participation; stakeholder advisory board.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Jerome T Galea, Karah Y Greene, Brandon Nguyen, Andrea N Polonijo, Karine Dubé, Jeff Taylor, Christopher Christensen, Zhiwei Zhang, Brandon Brown. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 23.11.2021.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study aims and process. IRB: institutional review board.

References

    1. Payment and reimbursement to research subjects. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2018. Jan 25, [2021-09-13]. .
    1. Lee R, Cui RR, Muessig KE, Thirumurthy H, Tucker JD. Incentivizing HIV/STI testing: a systematic review of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2014 May;18(5):905–912. doi: 10.1007/s10461-013-0588-8.
    1. Largent E. For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies. J Med Ethics. 2017 Feb;43(2):96–99. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103119. medethics-2015-103119
    1. Arnold MP, Evans D, Vergel N. Recruitment and ethical considerations in HIV cure trials requiring treatment interruption. J Virus Erad. 2015 Jan 01;1(1):43–48.
    1. Dubé K, Evans D, Sylla L, Taylor J, Weiner BJ, Skinner A, Thirumurthy H, Tucker JD, Rennie S, Greene SB. Willingness to participate and take risks in HIV cure research: survey results from 400 people living with HIV in the US. J Virus Erad. 2017 Jan 01;3(1):40–50.e21.
    1. London AJ, Borasky Jr DA, Bhan A, Ethics Working Group of the HIV Prevention Trials Network Improving ethical review of research involving incentives for health promotion. PLoS Med. 2012 Mar;9(3):e1001193. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001193.PMEDICINE-D-11-01601
    1. Brown JA, Serrato CA, Hugh M, Kanter MH, Spritzer KL, Hays RD. Effect of a post-paid incentive on response rates to a web-based survey. Surv Pract. 2016 Jan 31;9(1):1–9. doi: 10.29115/sp-2016-0001.
    1. Webinar follow-up: compensation or inducement? What IRBs need to know about paying subjects for participation. Amp&rsand. 2017. May 8, [2021-09-13].
    1. Grady C. Payment of clinical research subjects. J Clin Invest. 2005 Jul;115(7):1681–1687. doi: 10.1172/JCI25694. doi: 10.1172/JCI25694.
    1. Bentley JP, Thacker PG. The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process. J Med Ethics. 2004 Jun;30(3):293–298. doi: 10.1136/jme.2002.001594.
    1. Lo B, Grady C, Working Group on Ethics of the International AIDS Society Ethical considerations in HIV cure research: points to consider. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2013 May;8(3):243–249. doi: 10.1097/COH.0b013e32835ea1c5.
    1. Ripley EBD. A review of paying research participants: It's time to move beyond the ethical debate. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006 Dec;1(4):9–20. doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.4.9.
    1. Brown B, Marg L, Michels E, Zhang Z, Kuzmanović D, Dubé K, Galea JT. Comparing payments between sociobehavioral and biomedical studies in a large research university in Southern California. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021;16(1-2):117–124. doi: 10.1177/1556264620987773.
    1. Gelinas L, Largent EA, Cohen IG, Kornetsky S, Bierer BE, Lynch HF. A framework for ethical payment to research participants. N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):766–771. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb1710591.
    1. Kamuya DM, Marsh V, Njuguna P, Munywoki P, Parker M, Molyneux S. "When they see us, it's like they have seen the benefits!": experiences of study benefits negotiations in community-based studies on the Kenyan Coast. BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Dec 24;15(1):90. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-90. 1472-6939-15-90
    1. Largent EA, Grady C, Miller FG, Wertheimer A. Money, coercion, and undue inducement: attitudes about payments to research participants. IRB. 2012;34(1):1–8.
    1. Groth SW. Honorarium or coercion: use of incentives for participants in clinical research. J N Y State Nurses Assoc. 2010;41(1):11–3; quiz 22.
    1. Dubé K, Henderson GE, Margolis DM. Framing expectations in early HIV cure research. Trends Microbiol. 2014 Oct;22(10):547–549. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2014.08.003. S0966-842X(14)00159-0
    1. Resnik DB. Bioethical issues in providing financial incentives to research participants. Medicoleg Bioeth. 2015 Jun 24;5:35–41. doi: 10.2147/MB.S70416.
    1. Booker CL, Harding S, Benzeval M. A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. BMC Public Health. 2011 Apr 19;11:249. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-249. 1471-2458-11-249
    1. Anderson EE, Brown B. A call for radical transparency regarding research payments. Am J Bioeth. 2021 Mar;21(3):45–47. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1870763.
    1. Dickert N, Emanuel E, Grady C. Paying research subjects: an analysis of current policies. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Mar 05;136(5):368–373. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-5-200203050-00009.200203050-00009
    1. Grant RW, Sugarman J. Ethics in human subjects research: do incentives matter? J Med Philos. 2004 Dec;29(6):717–738. doi: 10.1080/03605310490883046.VRG4K3DLGYPJ21WC
    1. Foster CG. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. J Med Ethics. 1994 Jun 01;20(2):123–124. doi: 10.1136/jme.20.2.123.
    1. Henderson GE. The ethics of HIV "cure" research: what can we learn from consent forms? AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2015 Jan;31(1):56–63. doi: 10.1089/AID.2014.0219.
    1. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000 May;283(20):2701–2711. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701.jsc90374
    1. Brown B, Galea JT, Dubé K, Davidson P, Khoshnood K, Holtzman L, Marg L, Taylor J. The need to track payment incentives to participate in HIV research. IRB. 2018;40(4):8–12.
    1. Brown B, Galea JT, Davidson P, Khoshnood K. Transparency of participant incentives in HIV research. Lancet HIV. 2016 Oct;3(10):e456–e457. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(16)30150-3. S2352-3018(16)30150-3
    1. Brown B, Merritt MW. A global public incentive database for human subjects research. IRB. 2013;35(2):14–17.
    1. Emanuel EJ, Currie XE, Herman A, Project Phidisa Undue inducement in clinical research in developing countries: is it a worry? Lancet. 2005 Jul;366(9482):336–340. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66992-9.S0140-6736(05)66992-9
    1. Lobato L, Bethony JM, Pereira FB, Grahek SL, Diemert D, Gazzinelli MF. Impact of gender on the decision to participate in a clinical trial: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2014 Nov 06;14:1156. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1156. 1471-2458-14-1156
    1. Department of Health‚ Education‚ and Welfare. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81(3):4–13.
    1. Cryder CE, London AJ, Volpp KG, Loewenstein G. Informative inducement: study payment as a signal of risk. Soc Sci Med. 2010 Feb;70(3):455–464. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.047.S0277-9536(09)00737-0
    1. Weinberg J, Freese J, McElhattan D. Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-Based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociol Sci. 2014 Aug 04;1:292–310. doi: 10.15195/v1.a19.
    1. Shank DB. Using crowdsourcing websites for sociological research: The case of Amazon Mechanical Turk. Am Sociol. 2015 Mar 14;47(1):47–55. doi: 10.1007/s12108-015-9266-9.
    1. Sheehan KB. Crowdsourcing research: Data collection with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Commun Monogr. 2017 Jul 04;85(1):140–156. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2017.1342043.
    1. Guest G, Namey E, McKenna K. How many focus groups are enough? Building an evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes. Field methods. 2016 Apr 28;29(1):3–22. doi: 10.1177/1525822X16639015.
    1. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods. 2006 Feb 01;18(1):59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903.
    1. Corbin JM, Strauss A. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol. 1990 Mar;13:3–21. doi: 10.1007/BF00988593.
    1. Namey E, Guest G, McKenna K, Chen M. Evaluating bang for the buck. American Journal of Evaluation. 2016 Apr 28;37(3):425–440. doi: 10.1177/1098214016630406.
    1. DeCuir-Gunby JT, Marshall PL, McCulloch AW. Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field methods. 2010 Dec 27;23(2):136–155. doi: 10.1177/1525822X10388468.
    1. Brown BW, Walker MB. The random utility hypothesis and inference in demand systems. Econometrica. 1989 Jul;57(4):815–829. doi: 10.2307/1913773.
    1. Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ. 2004 Sep;13(9):901–907. doi: 10.1002/hec.870.
    1. Hunink MGM, Weinstein MC, Wittenberg E, Drummond MF, Pliskin JS, Wong JB, Glasziou PP. Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
    1. Akkazieva B, Gulacsi L, Brandtmuller A, Péntek M, Bridges JFP. Patients' preferences for healthcare system reforms in Hungary: a conjoint analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5(3):189–198. doi: 10.2165/00148365-200605030-00005.535
    1. Aristides M, Chen J, Schulz M, Williamson E, Clarke S, Grant K. Conjoint analysis of a new Chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced Colorectal Cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(11):775–784. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200220110-00006.201106
    1. Bhargava JS, Bhan-Bhargava A, Foss AJE, King AJ. Views of glaucoma patients on provision of follow-up care; an assessment of patient preferences by conjoint analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Dec;92(12):1601–1605. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.140483.bjo.2008.140483
    1. Bishai D, Brice R, Girod I, Saleh A, Ehreth J. Conjoint analysis of French and German parents' willingness to pay for meningococcal vaccine. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(2):143–154. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725020-00006.2526
    1. Costa MLV, de Cássia Braga Ribeiro K, Machado MAC, Costa ACLV, Montagnini AL. Prognostic score in gastric cancer: the importance of a conjoint analysis of clinical, pathologic, and therapeutic factors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006 Jun;13(6):843–850. doi: 10.1245/ASO.2006.05.040.
    1. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, Chen Y, Buchanan DH, Sdao-Jarvie K. Providing information to parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint analysis of professional preferences. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2009 Nov;37(8):1089–1102. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9338-9.
    1. Fisher K, Orkin F, Frazer C. Utilizing conjoint analysis to explicate health care decision making by emergency department nurses: a feasibility study. Appl Nurs Res. 2010 Feb;23(1):30–35. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2008.03.004.S0897-1897(08)00036-0
    1. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000 Jun 03;320(7248):1530–1533. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530.
    1. Galea JT, Kinsler JJ, Salazar X, Lee SJ, Giron M, Sayles JN, Cáceres C, Cunningham WE. Acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis as an HIV prevention strategy: barriers and facilitators to pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake among at-risk Peruvian populations. Int J STD AIDS. 2011 May;22(5):256–262. doi: 10.1258/ijsa.2009.009255. 22/5/256
    1. Beusterien KM, Dziekan K, Flood E, Harding G, Jordan JC. Understanding patient preferences for HIV medications using adaptive conjoint analysis: feasibility assessment. Value Health. 2005;8(4):453–461. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00036.x. S1098-3015(10)60038-1
    1. Stone VE, Jordan J, Tolson J, Miller R, Pilon T. Perspectives on adherence and simplicity for HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy: self-report of the relative importance of multiple attributes of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens in predicting adherence. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004 Jul 01;36(3):808–816. doi: 10.1097/00126334-200407010-00007.00126334-200407010-00007
    1. Newman PA, Duan N, Lee SJ, Rudy ET, Seiden DS, Kakinami L, Cunningham WE. HIV vaccine acceptability among communities at risk: the impact of vaccine characteristics. Vaccine. 2006 Mar 15;24(12):2094–2101. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.11.013. S0264-410X(05)01143-6
    1. El-Sadr WM, Donnell D, Beauchamp G, Hall HI, Torian LV, Zingman B, Lum G, Kharfen M, Elion R, Leider J, Gordin FM, Elharrar V, Burns D, Zerbe A, Gamble T, Branson B, HPTN 065 Study Team Financial incentives for linkage to care and viral suppression among HIV-positive patients: A randomized clinical trial (HPTN 065) JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Aug 01;177(8):1083–1092. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2158. 2631560
    1. Finch J. The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology. 1987 Feb 01;21(1):105–114. doi: 10.1177/0038038587021001008.
    1. Gourlay A, Mshana G, Birdthistle I, Bulugu G, Zaba B, Urassa M. Using vignettes in qualitative research to explore barriers and facilitating factors to the uptake of prevention of mother-to-child transmission services in rural Tanzania: a critical analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Feb 11;14:21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-21. 1471-2288-14-21
    1. Jenkins N, Bloor M, Fischer J, Berney L, Neale J. Putting it in context: the use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing. Qual Res. 2010 Apr 12;10(2):175–198. doi: 10.1177/1468794109356737.
    1. McCulloch CE, Searle SR, Neuhaus JM. Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models, 2nd edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Interscience; 2008.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe