Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2019 Jan;76:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2018.11.007. Epub 2018 Nov 8.
The most common and conceptually sound ethical concerns with financial incentives for research participation are that they may (1) represent undue inducements by blunting peoples' perceptions of research risks, thereby preventing fully informed consent; or (2) represent unjust inducements by encouraging enrollment preferentially among the poor. Neither of these concerns has been shown to manifest in studies testing the effects of incentives on decisions to participate in hypothetical randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but neither has been assessed in real RCTs.
We are conducting randomized trials of real incentives embedded within two parent RCTs. In each of two trials conducted in parallel, we are randomizing 576 participants to one of three incentive groups. Following preliminary determination of patients' eligibility in the parent RCT, we assess patients' research attitudes, demographic characteristics, perceived research risks, time spent reviewing consent documents, ability to distinguish research from patient care, and comprehension of key trial features. These quantitative assessments will be supplemented by semi-structured interviews for a selected group of participants that more deeply explore patients' motivations for trial participation. The trials are each designed to have adequate power to rule out undue and unjust inducement. We are also exploring potential benefits of incentives, including possible increased attention to research risks and cost-effectiveness.
人们对研究参与财务激励最常见和最合理的伦理关注是,它们可能(1)代表不适当的诱因,使人们对研究风险的认识变得迟钝,从而无法实现充分知情同意;或(2)代表不公平的诱因,鼓励优先在贫困人群中招募。这些担忧都没有在测试激励对参与假设性随机临床试验(RCT)的决策的影响的研究中表现出来,但也没有在真实的 RCT 中进行评估。
我们正在进行两项嵌入在两个主要 RCT 中的真实激励的随机试验。在同时进行的两项试验中,我们将 576 名参与者随机分配到三个激励组中的一个。在初步确定主要 RCT 中的患者资格后,我们评估患者的研究态度、人口统计学特征、感知研究风险、审查同意书的时间、区分研究和患者护理的能力,以及对关键试验特征的理解。这些定量评估将通过对一组选定参与者进行半结构化访谈来补充,以更深入地探讨患者参与试验的动机。这两项试验的设计都有足够的能力排除不适当和不公平的诱因。我们还在探索激励的潜在好处,包括可能增加对研究风险和成本效益的关注。