Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia
There are disagreements among ethicists on what comprises an “appropriate” good to offer research participants. Debates often focus on the type, quantity, timing, and ethical appropriateness of such offers, particularly in settings where participants may be socio-economically vulnerable, such as in...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | Global Bioethics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2018.1527672 |
| _version_ | 1831634337783611392 |
|---|---|
| author | Chris Mweemba Joseph Ali Adnan A. Hyder |
| author_facet | Chris Mweemba Joseph Ali Adnan A. Hyder |
| author_sort | Chris Mweemba |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | There are disagreements among ethicists on what comprises an “appropriate” good to offer research participants. Debates often focus on the type, quantity, timing, and ethical appropriateness of such offers, particularly in settings where participants may be socio-economically vulnerable, such as in parts of Zambia. This was a Cross-sectional online survey of researchers and Research Ethics Committees (RECs) designed to understand practices, attitudes and policies associated with provision of goods to research participants. Of 122 responding researchers, 69 met eligibility criteria. Responses were also received from five of the six Zambian RECs involved in reviewing research proposals. Forty-nine researchers (71.0%) confirmed previous experience offering goods to participants. Of these, 21 (42.9%) offered participants money only, 18 (36.7%) offered non-monetary goods, while the rest offered both monetary and non-monetary goods. Generally, goods were offered and approved by RECs to compensate for time, lost wages and transportation. One REC and 34.8% of researchers reported being subject to an institutional policy on offering goods to participants. While reimbursement is the main reason for offering goods to participants in Zambia, caution is required when deciding on the type and quantity of goods to offer given the potential for community mistrust and manipulation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T05:52:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-216c092537cd4f4190a1315627843129 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1128-7462 1591-7398 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T05:52:10Z |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Global Bioethics |
| spelling | doaj.art-216c092537cd4f4190a13156278431292022-12-21T20:33:35ZengTaylor & Francis GroupGlobal Bioethics1128-74621591-73982020-01-013119010310.1080/11287462.2018.15276721527672Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in ZambiaChris Mweemba0Joseph Ali1Adnan A. Hyder2Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of ZambiaDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthThere are disagreements among ethicists on what comprises an “appropriate” good to offer research participants. Debates often focus on the type, quantity, timing, and ethical appropriateness of such offers, particularly in settings where participants may be socio-economically vulnerable, such as in parts of Zambia. This was a Cross-sectional online survey of researchers and Research Ethics Committees (RECs) designed to understand practices, attitudes and policies associated with provision of goods to research participants. Of 122 responding researchers, 69 met eligibility criteria. Responses were also received from five of the six Zambian RECs involved in reviewing research proposals. Forty-nine researchers (71.0%) confirmed previous experience offering goods to participants. Of these, 21 (42.9%) offered participants money only, 18 (36.7%) offered non-monetary goods, while the rest offered both monetary and non-monetary goods. Generally, goods were offered and approved by RECs to compensate for time, lost wages and transportation. One REC and 34.8% of researchers reported being subject to an institutional policy on offering goods to participants. While reimbursement is the main reason for offering goods to participants in Zambia, caution is required when deciding on the type and quantity of goods to offer given the potential for community mistrust and manipulation.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2018.1527672research ethicsinducementscompensationmonetary and non-monetary goodsresearch ethics committeesinstitutional review boardszambia |
| spellingShingle | Chris Mweemba Joseph Ali Adnan A. Hyder Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia Global Bioethics research ethics inducements compensation monetary and non-monetary goods research ethics committees institutional review boards zambia |
| title | Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia |
| title_full | Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia |
| title_fullStr | Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia |
| title_full_unstemmed | Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia |
| title_short | Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia |
| title_sort | providing monetary and non monetary goods to research participants perspectives and practices of researchers and research ethics committees in zambia |
| topic | research ethics inducements compensation monetary and non-monetary goods research ethics committees institutional review boards zambia |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2018.1527672 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT chrismweemba providingmonetaryandnonmonetarygoodstoresearchparticipantsperspectivesandpracticesofresearchersandresearchethicscommitteesinzambia AT josephali providingmonetaryandnonmonetarygoodstoresearchparticipantsperspectivesandpracticesofresearchersandresearchethicscommitteesinzambia AT adnanahyder providingmonetaryandnonmonetarygoodstoresearchparticipantsperspectivesandpracticesofresearchersandresearchethicscommitteesinzambia |