Draper Heather, Wilson Sue, Flanagan Sarah, Ives Jonathan
Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Fam Pract. 2009 Jun;26(3):231-8. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmp011. Epub 2009 Mar 3.
Sometimes researchers fail to meet their recruitment targets, and sometimes it is predicted that recruitment may prove difficult but it is not obvious what ethical latitude researchers have to boost participation by, for instance, paying participants to take part or by paying family doctors to recruit patients to participate. In this paper, we distinguish between payment, reimbursement and inducement. We look first at the ethics of paying research participants. We conclude that payment raises all kinds of ethical difficulties, but that reimbursement-whilst not completely unproblematic-is an ethical requirement. We then look at whether some inducement to participate is acceptable and conclude that it is. We continue by asking whether the same arguments can be applied to encouraging family doctors to recruit patients. We conclude that it is right for family doctors to be reimbursed for the costs of recruiting research participants and also argue that there are fewer problems with paying family doctors to recruit patients than there are with paying research participants. Given, however, that there is a fine line between reimbursement and payment, given the potential for conflicts of interests to arise, and given that even suspicion of such a conflict might undermine trust in doctors, systems of both payment and reimbursement need to be transparent.
有时研究人员未能达到招募目标,有时预计招募可能会很困难,但目前尚不清楚研究人员在道德层面有多大的回旋余地来提高参与率,比如,付钱让参与者参与,或者付钱给家庭医生让其招募患者参与。在本文中,我们区分了报酬、报销和诱因。我们首先探讨支付研究参与者报酬的伦理问题。我们的结论是,支付报酬引发了各种伦理难题,但报销虽然并非完全没有问题,却是一项伦理要求。接着我们探讨是否某些参与诱因是可以接受的,并得出结论认为是可以接受的。我们继续探讨同样的论据是否适用于鼓励家庭医生招募患者。我们的结论是,家庭医生因招募研究参与者而产生的费用应该得到报销,并且我们还认为,付钱给家庭医生招募患者所产生的问题要比付钱给研究参与者少。然而,鉴于报销和支付之间界限微妙,鉴于存在利益冲突的可能性,而且鉴于即使只是怀疑存在这种冲突也可能破坏对医生的信任,支付和报销制度都需要透明。