Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia

Chris Mweemba, Joseph Ali, Adnan A. Hyder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalGlobal Bioethics
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Zambia
research ethics
Research Ethics Committees
Research Personnel
Research
Organizational Policy
Ethicists
Salaries and Fringe Benefits
Research Design
Cross-Sectional Studies
online survey
manipulation
wage
money

Keywords

  • compensation
  • inducements
  • institutional review boards
  • monetary and non-monetary goods
  • Research ethics
  • Research Ethics Committees
  • Zambia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Health Policy
  • Health(social science)

Cite this

@article{62c6464991e0428f90f27d360a2460ca,
title = "Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "compensation, inducements, institutional review boards, monetary and non-monetary goods, Research ethics, Research Ethics Committees, Zambia",
author = "Chris Mweemba and Joseph Ali and Hyder, {Adnan A.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/11287462.2018.1527672",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Global Bioethics",
issn = "1128-7462",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants

T2 - perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia

AU - Mweemba, Chris

AU - Ali, Joseph

AU - Hyder, Adnan A.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - compensation

KW - inducements

KW - institutional review boards

KW - monetary and non-monetary goods

KW - Research ethics

KW - Research Ethics Committees

KW - Zambia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070490159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070490159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/11287462.2018.1527672

DO - 10.1080/11287462.2018.1527672

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85070490159

JO - Global Bioethics

JF - Global Bioethics

SN - 1128-7462

ER -