The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“but also on the retention rate, and affect the acceptability assessment.”
From Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary outcomes of a mindfulness-based relapse prevention program in a naturalistic setting among treatment-seeking patients with alcohol use disorder: A prospective observational study (2019) · cites this paper as [35]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Herne, H., Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1973) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344428 · Cited by 35,801
Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
Sitgreaves, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 14,384
(1998) · DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University) · Cited by 13,997
Beaton, A. E., & Keppel, G. (1975) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162588 · Cited by 5,857
A history and theory of informed consent
Kapp, M. B. (1986) · Journal of Legal Medicine · doi:10.1080/01947648609513478 · Cited by 2,328
Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook, 3rd ed.
Keppel, G. (1991) · Cited by 703
A History and Theory of Informed Consent
Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & King, N. M. P. (1986) · Cited by 537
What's the Price of a Research Subject? Approaches to Payment for Research Participation
Dickert, N. W., & Grady, C. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199907153410312 · Cited by 472
James, J. M., & Bolstein, R. (1990) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269211 · Cited by 256
Money for Research Participation: Does It Jeopardize Informed Consent?
Grady, C. (2001) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1162/152651601300169031 · Cited by 248
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- 1981, IRB, 3, 1
- 1985, Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc, 48, 26
- 1999, Orthop Nurs, 18, 84
- 2001, Am J Bioeth, 1, 40
- 1994, Clin Ther, 16, 273
- 2001, Oncol Nurs Forum, 28, 657
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Standard deviations and standard errors
Altman, D. G., & Bland, M. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.903 · Cited by 897
Treweek, S. P., Lockhart, P., Pitkethly, M., Cook, J. A., Kjeldstrøm, M., Johansen, M., Taskila, T. K., Sullivan, F., Wilson, S., Jackson, C. M., et al. (2013) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360 · Cited by 625
Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials
Treweek, S., Pitkethly, M., Cook, J., Fraser, C., Mitchell, E., Sullivan, F., Jackson, C., Taskila, T. K., & Gardner, H. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000013.pub6 · Cited by 521
Pratap, A., Neto, E. C., Snyder, P., Stepnowsky, C., Elhadad, N., Grant, D., Mohebbi, M. H., Mooney, S., Suver, C., Wilbanks, J., et al. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0224-8 · Cited by 410
Recruiting Vulnerable Populations into Research: A Systematic Review of Recruitment Interventions
UyBico, S. J., Pavel, S., & Gross, C. P. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0126-3 · Cited by 386
Metadata
- Authors
- Bentley, J. P., & Thacker, P. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Mississippi (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bentley, J P
- ORCID
- 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
- PMC
- PMC1733848
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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 › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › 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
