Suppr超能文献

参与临床研究的报酬:提交给伦理委员会的提案审查

Payment for participation in clinical research: Review of proposals submitted to the ethics committees.

作者信息

Marathe Padmaja A, Tripathi Raakhi K, Shetty Yashashri C, Kuyare Sunil S, Kamat Sandhya K, Thatte Urmila M

机构信息

Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Department of Microbiology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

出版信息

Perspect Clin Res. 2018 Apr-Jun;9(2):64-69. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_159_16.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

In view of dearth of information in national and international guidelines on payment practices in research, the present study was done to find out payments for participation allowed by 3 Ethics committees (ECs) and reasons for payment.

METHOD

This was a retrospective observational study which analysed research proposals reviewed by 2 institutional and 1 non-institutional ECs over a period of 2 years. The permission of ECs was obtained and confidentiality of data was maintained.

RESULTS

Of the 73 studies requiring payment, 89.04% were interventional and 10.96% observational. Reimbursement of travel expenses (60%) was the major reason for payment followed by inconvenience due to participation, loss of wages and time spent. The queries raised by EC in more than 50 % of studies were related to informing patients about the payment in the informed consent document. The investigators complied with the EC requirements regarding payment (15/21) and the remaining provided explanations. The median amount of payment in pharmaceutical sponsored studies was higher compared to investigator initiated studies. Higher payments were approved by ECs on case to case basis in a few studies. The ECs did not have any policy/ standard operating procedure for payment practices.

CONCLUSION

The present study first of its kind in India, demonstrated that quantum of payment was not uniform for pharmaceutical sponsored and investigator initiated studies and payments were not considered for majority of observational studies. Travel reimbursement was the most common reason for payment. There is a need to develop guidelines for determining appropriate payment/incentives to participants for specific types of research related activities.

摘要

目的

鉴于国内外研究支付实践指南中信息匮乏,本研究旨在查明3个伦理委员会(EC)允许的参与研究的支付情况及支付原因。

方法

这是一项回顾性观察研究,分析了2个机构伦理委员会和1个非机构伦理委员会在2年时间内审查的研究提案。获得了伦理委员会的许可并对数据保密。

结果

在73项需要支付费用的研究中,89.04%为干预性研究,10.96%为观察性研究。支付的主要原因是差旅费报销(60%),其次是参与研究带来的不便、工资损失和花费的时间。伦理委员会在超过50%的研究中提出的问题与在知情同意书中告知患者支付情况有关。研究者遵守了伦理委员会关于支付的要求(15/21),其余提供了解释。制药公司资助的研究中支付的中位数金额高于研究者发起的研究。在一些研究中,伦理委员会根据具体情况批准了更高的支付金额。伦理委员会没有关于支付实践的任何政策/标准操作程序。

结论

本研究在印度尚属首次,表明制药公司资助的研究和研究者发起的研究支付金额不一致,大多数观察性研究不考虑支付。差旅费报销是最常见的支付原因。需要制定指南,以确定针对特定类型研究相关活动向参与者支付适当的报酬/激励措施。

相似文献

6
Informative inducement: study payment as a signal of risk.信息性激励:研究报酬作为风险的信号。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Feb;70(3):455-464. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.047. Epub 2009 Nov 18.

本文引用的文献

9
Payment of clinical research subjects.临床研究受试者的报酬。
J Clin Invest. 2005 Jul;115(7):1681-7. doi: 10.1172/JCI25694.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验