• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.研究参与者付费的伦理剖析。
Med Health Care Philos. 2022 Sep;25(3):449-464. doi: 10.1007/s11019-022-10092-1. Epub 2022 May 24.
2
The place of autonomy in bioethics.自主权在生物伦理学中的地位。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1990 Jan-Feb;20(1):12-7.
3
Forensic psychiatry, one subspecialty with two ethics? A systematic review.法医精神病学,一个具有两种伦理规范的亚专业?一项系统综述。
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Apr 10;19(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0266-5.
4
In defence of moral imperialism: four equal and universal prima facie principles.为道德帝国主义辩护:四条平等且普遍的初步原则。
J Med Ethics. 2006 Apr;32(4):200-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.012591.
5
Response to Erich Loewy: commentary.对埃里希·洛伊的回应:评论
J Clin Ethics. 1991 Summer;2(2):90-1.
6
Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope.医学伦理学:四项原则外加对范围的关注。
BMJ. 1994 Jul 16;309(6948):184-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6948.184.
7
Justice and welfare: two ethical paradigms in forensic psychiatry.正义与福利:法医精神病学中的两种伦理范式。
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005 Nov-Dec;39(11-12):1011-7. doi: 10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01719.x.
8
Doctors and patients.医生和患者。
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Feb 15;292(6518):466-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.292.6518.466.
9
Not just autonomy--the principles of American biomedical ethics.不仅仅是自主性——美国生物医学伦理学的原则。
J Med Ethics. 1995 Dec;21(6):332-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.6.332.
10
Preliminary ethical appraisal of a trial - what's it all about?一项试验的初步伦理评估——这一切是关于什么的?
Duodecim. 2017;133(6):582-6.

引用本文的文献

1
Development of a Novel Web-Based Intervention Targeting Pain-Related Outcomes in Individuals With Chronic Orofacial Pain: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.一项针对慢性口面部疼痛患者疼痛相关结局的新型基于网络干预措施的开发:一项混合方法研究的方案
JMIR Res Protoc. 2025 Aug 20;14:e71839. doi: 10.2196/71839.
2
Ethical principles across countries: does 'ethical' mean the same everywhere?各国的伦理原则:“伦理”在各地的含义相同吗?
Front Public Health. 2025 Jun 11;13:1579778. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1579778. eCollection 2025.
3
Evidence for College Students' Decreasing Sense of Belonging over Time: Direct and Moderated Results.大学生归属感随时间下降的证据:直接和调节效应结果
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025 Mar 22;22(4):472. doi: 10.3390/ijerph22040472.
4
Real ethics has dirty feet - data collector perspectives on risk exposure during data collection in conflict-affected Eastern DRC.真正的伦理满是泥泞——数据收集者对受冲突影响的刚果民主共和国东部数据收集期间风险暴露的看法。
Confl Health. 2025 Apr 1;19(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s13031-025-00658-0.
5
Implications for Precision Accelerated Clinically Embedded Research (PACER): A novel technology-enabled approach to conducting minimal-risk research in outpatient community healthcare settings.对精准加速临床嵌入式研究(PACER)的启示:一种借助新技术在门诊社区医疗环境中开展低风险研究的方法。
PLoS One. 2025 Apr 1;20(4):e0318533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318533. eCollection 2025.
6
A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review.为实现更好的社会责任与正义的全球科学研究伦理之旅:文献计量分析与综述
Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 Feb 11;10:1504937. doi: 10.3389/frma.2025.1504937. eCollection 2025.
7
Managing online learning burnout via investigating the role of loneliness during COVID-19.通过调查孤独感在2019年冠状病毒病期间的作用来管理在线学习倦怠。
BMC Psychol. 2025 Feb 21;13(1):151. doi: 10.1186/s40359-025-02419-3.
8
A Microfinance Intervention With or Without Peer Support to Improve Mental Health Among Transgender and Nonbinary Adults (the Creating Access to Resources and Economic Support Study): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.一项有或没有同伴支持的小额金融干预措施,以改善跨性别和非二元成年人的心理健康(创造资源和经济支持研究):一项随机对照试验的方案。
JMIR Res Protoc. 2024 Aug 26;13:e63656. doi: 10.2196/63656.
9
Recruitment and Retention Issues in a Technology-Based Intervention Among Korean American Midlife Women With Depressive Symptoms.基于技术的干预措施在韩国裔美国中年女性抑郁症状群体中的招募和保留问题。
Comput Inform Nurs. 2024 Sep 1;42(9):648-654. doi: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000001159.
10
Financial incentives to motivate treatment for hepatitis C with direct acting antivirals among Australian adults (The Methodical evaluation and Optimisation of Targeted IncentiVes for Accessing Treatment of Early-stage hepatitis C: MOTIVATE-C): protocol for a dose-response randomised controlled study.经济激励措施以激励澳大利亚成年人使用直接作用抗病毒药物治疗丙型肝炎(方法学评估和优化针对早期丙型肝炎治疗的靶向激励措施:MOTIVATE-C):一项剂量反应随机对照研究方案。
Trials. 2024 Jun 17;25(1):387. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08212-8.

本文引用的文献

1
Fair payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical research.合理报酬与公平福利以促进临床研究的多样性。
J Clin Transl Sci. 2021 Jul 14;5(1):e159. doi: 10.1017/cts.2021.816. eCollection 2021.
2
Research Participants Should Be Rewarded Rather than "Compensated for Time and Burdens".研究参与者应得到奖励,而非“因时间和负担获得补偿”。
Am J Bioeth. 2021 Mar;21(3):53-55. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1870770.
3
Paying for Fairness? Incentives and Fair Subject Selection.为公平付费?激励措施与公平的受试者选择
Am J Bioeth. 2021 Mar;21(3):35-37. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1870766.
4
Promoting Ethical Payment in Human Infection Challenge Studies.促进人体感染挑战研究中的伦理付费。
Am J Bioeth. 2021 Mar;21(3):11-31. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1854368. Epub 2021 Feb 4.
5
Should practice and policy be revised to allow for risk-proportional payment to human challenge study participants?实践和政策是否应该修订,以便向人类挑战研究参与者提供与风险相称的报酬?
J Med Ethics. 2020 Dec;46(12):835-836. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106900. Epub 2020 Nov 5.
6
Compensating for research risk: permissible but not obligatory.补偿研究风险:可行但非强制。
J Med Ethics. 2020 Dec;46(12):827-828. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106829. Epub 2020 Oct 13.
7
Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model.挑战研究中的支付:伦理、态度和风险模型的新支付方式。
J Med Ethics. 2020 Dec;46(12):815-826. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106438. Epub 2020 Sep 25.
8
Are Payments to Human Research Subjects Ethically Suspect?向人类研究受试者支付报酬在伦理上是否可疑?
J Clin Res Best Pract. 2019 Jun;15(6).
9
Economic vulnerability and payment for research participation.经济脆弱性与参与研究的报酬。
Clin Trials. 2020 Jun;17(3):264-272. doi: 10.1177/1740774520905596. Epub 2020 Feb 17.
10
"My Body is One of the Best Commodities": Exploring the Ethics of Commodification in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Clinical Trials.“我的身体是最优质的商品之一”:探究I期健康志愿者临床试验中商品化的伦理问题
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2019;29(4):305-331. doi: 10.1353/ken.2019.0028.

研究参与者付费的伦理剖析。

The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.

机构信息

Center for Bioethics and Biolaw, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmiescie 3, 00-047, Warsaw, Poland.

出版信息

Med Health Care Philos. 2022 Sep;25(3):449-464. doi: 10.1007/s11019-022-10092-1. Epub 2022 May 24.

DOI:10.1007/s11019-022-10092-1
PMID:35610403
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9427899/
Abstract

In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of-more or less well-justified-ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have a prima facie moral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical "spine" of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical "skeleton" of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits).

摘要

与大多数关于支付研究对象伦理的出版物不同,这些出版物通常从识别和分析支付实践引起的主要伦理问题开始(特别是过度诱导和剥削的风险),并以一套或多或少有充分理由的伦理建议结束,这些建议用于设计能够避免这些问题的支付方案。本文提供了一种系统的、基于原则的支付实践伦理分析。它认为,研究人员有向研究对象支付报酬的初步道德义务,这源于社会慈善原则。该原则构成了实践的伦理“脊柱”。研究伦理的其他伦理原则(尊重自主权、个体慈善和公正/公平)构成了道德上合理的支付方案的伦理“骨架”,为参与者提供了额外的道德理由:(1)补偿合理费用;(2a)将报酬概念化为对参与者有价值贡献的奖励,前提是它符合平等、充分和非剥削的标准,并且(ii)它不过分诱人(即,它不会对参与或保留构成过度诱导,也不会鼓励欺骗行为);或(2b)将报酬概念化为市场驱动的价格,前提是它是必要的,并旨在帮助研究实现其社会和科学目标,(ii)它不会加剧更广泛的社会不公正和不平等;(iii)它符合非剥削的要求;并且(iv)它不过分诱人。正义原则为不支付工资(或其他合理预期利润)损失提供了强有力的伦理理由。