Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21931235›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2011

Perceptions of reimbursement for clinical trial participation.

Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, Melissa Loza, Kathleen Vincent, Thomas Moench, Lawrence R Stanberry, Susan L Rosenthal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Clinical trial-related financial considerations from Deep South-patients with breast cancer who previously declined trial participation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Why do people participate in epidemiological research?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carmen Radecki BreitkopfHealth Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. radeckibreitkopf.carmen@mayo.edu.
Melissa Loza
Kathleen Vincent
Thomas Moench
Lawrence R Stanberry
Susan L Rosenthal

Funding

UTMB CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARD: NASA BED REST STUDIESUL1RR029876 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI BRASIER, ALLAN R. · 2009 to 2011
$17.7M
Supplement to grant: Development of Dendrimer and Combination MicrobicidesU19AI060598 · NIAID · STARPHARMA, LTD · PI PAULL, JEREMY · 2004 to 2009
$6.9M
NCRR NIH HHS 1UL1RR029876-01NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR029876NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI060598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A greater understanding of participant views regarding reimbursement will help investigators plan studies that have better potential for reaching target enrollment, maximize efficient recruitment, maintain scientific integrity, and enhance retention over time. As part of a clinical trial in the area of sexual health, healthy women's perceptions of reimbursement for research participation were investigated. Semi-structured, audio-recorded, qualitative interviews were conducted immediately upon women's completion of the clinical trial to enable a participant-driven understanding of perceptions about monetary reimbursement. Audio-recordings were transcribed and analyzed using framework analysis. Women (N = 30) had a mean age of 29.5 ± 5.7 years (range 22-45 years). Sixty-three percent of participants (n = 19) were non-Hispanic (white n = 13, black n = 4, and Asian n = 2), while the remaining were Hispanic (n = 11). Seventy-three percent (n = 22) reported previous participation in research. In general, women viewed reimbursement as a benefit to research participation, the amount of which should reflect time, the inconvenience to the research subject, and the potential for unknown risks in the short- and long-term. They believed reimbursement should take into account the degree of risk of the study, with investigations of experimental products offering greater reimbursement. Women believed that monetary reimbursement is unlikely to coerce an individual to volunteer for a study involving procedures or requirements that they found unacceptable. The results of this study can be used to provide guidance to those planning and evaluating reimbursement for research participation.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationRemunerationResearch SubjectsAdultAsian PeopleBlack PeopleClinical Trials as TopicClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicEthics, ResearchFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansInterviews as TopicPatient SelectionReproductive HealthRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID21931235
PMCPMC3278858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.