ArticleJournal of medical ethics2013
How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Pooled it
- "You would not be in a hurry to go back home": patients' willingness to participate in HIV/AIDS clinical trials at a clinical and research facility in Kampala, Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 2020Trial
- Trial
- How Do Weapons Screening Programs Reduce Armed Hospital Assault? A Scoping Review of Public Health Principles.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Balancing Parental and Child Interests in Research Subject Compensation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- "Our Community Comes First": Investigating Recruitment Ads That Represent and Appeal to Black Women for Online, HIV-Related Research Studies.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2024Article
- The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- Stigma, surveillance, and wounded healing: Promoting a critical ethics of care in research with formerly incarcerated Black women.Journal of community psychology · 2022Article
- Ethical considerations around volunteer payments in a malaria human infection study in Kenya: an embedded empirical ethics study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Reimagining IRB review to incorporate a clear and convincing standard of evidence.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Standards of evidence for institutional review board decision-making.Accountability in research · 2021Article
- Overcoming Barriers to Parkinson Disease Trial Participation: Increasing Diversity and Novel Designs for Recruitment and Retention.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2020Review
- Professionalism in practice: Exploring the ethical perplexity of involving students in Medical Education Research.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2020Article
- Psychological Screening for Exceptional Environments: Laboratory Circadian Rhythm and Sleep Research.Clocks & sleep · 2020Article
- Article
- Evaluation of a University's Institutional Review Board Based on Campus Feedback: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2019Article
- Participant incentives in rehabilitation research: a pilot study of researchers' perspectives.African health sciences · 2019Article
- Are Payments to Human Research Subjects Ethically Suspect?Journal of clinical research best practices · 2019Article
- The Ethical Concerns of Seeking Consent from Critically Ill, Mechanically Ventilated Patients for Research - A Matter of Possessing Capacity or Surrogate Insight.Clinical ethics · 2018Article
- Serial Participation and the Ethics of Phase 1 Healthy Volunteer Research.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
introductionScholars have debated how to define coercion and undue influence, but how institutional review boards (IRBs) view and make decisions about these issues in actual cases has not been explored.
methodsI contacted the leadership of 60 US IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health funding), and interviewed 39 IRB leaders or administrators from 34 of these institutions (response rate=55%), and 7 members.
resultsIRBs wrestled with defining of 'coercion' and 'undue inducement', most notably in deciding about participant compensation. IRBs often use these terms synonymously and define undue inducement in varying ways, often wrestling with these issues, relying on 'gut feelings', and seeking compromises. Ambiguities arose, partly reflecting underlying tensions: whether subjects should 'get paid' versus 'volunteer' (ie, whether subjects should be motivated by compensation vs altruism), and whether subjects should be paid differently based on income, given possible resultant selection bias. Lack of consistent standards emerged between and even on single IRBs. Questions arose concerning certain aspects and types of studies; for example, how to view and weigh providing free care in research, whether and how recruitment flyers should mention compensation, and how to avoid coercion in paediatric, developing world, or students research.
conclusionsThese data, the first to probe qualitatively how IRBs view and approach questions about coercion, undue influence and participant compensation, and to examine how IRBs have reviewed actual cases, reveal several critical ambiguities and dilemmas, and have vital implications for future practice, education, policy and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.