Cited by 316Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process

Open access
Bentley, J P, Thacker, P G·2004·Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract

Objectives:To determine the effects of risk and payment on subjects’ willingness to participate, and to examine how payment influences subjects’ potential behaviours and risk evaluations. Methods:A 3 (level of risk) × 3 (level of monetary payment), between subjects, completely randomised factorial design was used. Students enrolled at one of five US pharmacy schools read a recruitment notice and informed consent form for a hypothetical study, and completed a questionnaire. Risk level was manipulated using recruitment notices and informed consent documents from hypothetical biomedical research projects. Payment levels were determined using the payment models evaluated by Dickert and Grady as a guide. Five dependent variables were assessed in the questionnaire: willingness to participate, willingness to participate with no payment, propensity to neglect to tell about restricted activities, propensity to neglect to tell about negative effects, and risk rating. Results:Monetary payment had positive effects on respondents’ willingness to participate in research, regardless of the level of risk. However, higher monetary payments did not appear to blind respondents to the risks of a study. Payment had some influence on respondents’ potential behaviours regarding concealing information about restricted activities. However, payment did not appear to have a significant effect on respondents’ propensity to neglect to tell researchers about negative effects. Conclusions:Monetary payments appear to do what they are intended to do: make subjects more willing to participate in research. Concerns about payments blinding subjects to risks could not be substantiated in the present study. However, the findings do raise other concerns—notably the potential for payments to diminish the integrity of a study’s findings. Future research is critical to make sound decisions about the payment of research subjects.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jme.2002.001594

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bentley, J. P., & Thacker, P. G.
Affiliations
University of Mississippi (US)
Corresponding author
Bentley, J P
Venue
Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-06
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
293-298
ISSN
  • 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4257
OpenAlex
W1976092863
Cited by
316
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 16
FWCI
12.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Auburn University
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
participant recruitment, monetary payments, risk perception, willingness to participate, informed consent, risk disclosure, payment models, research ethics, pharmacy students
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Fees and Charges, Humans, Human Experimentation, Informed Consent, Motivation, Risk, Truth Disclosure, Ethics, Research, Research Subjects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review