ArticleBMC medical ethics2013
Study participants incentives, compensation and reimbursement in resource-constrained settings.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promised and Lottery Airtime Incentives to Improve Interactive Voice Response Survey Participation Among Adults in Bangladesh and Uganda: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Conflicting perspectives on what constitutes fair compensation and benefits among research stakeholders in Malawi.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Feasibility and Preliminary Response of a Novel Training Program on Mobility Parameters in Adolescents with Movement Disorders.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Understanding parental consent and trust in paediatric LRTI research: insights from a qualitative study in Indonesia.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Investigating research study participant compensation practices at a California academic and research institution.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Community perceptions of health accountability meetings with local politicians to improve healthcare quality: a qualitative study in Western Uganda.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- The features and processes underpinning high-quality data generation in participatory research and engagement activities.Methods in ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Challenges and Lessons Learned in the Development of a Participatory Learning and Action Intervention to Tackle Antibiotic Resistance: Experiences From Northern Vietnam.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Participant understanding of informed consent in a multidisease community-based health screening and biobank platform in rural South Africa.International health · 2020Article
- Eating habits and dietary acculturation effects among international college students in the United States.AIMS public health · 2020Article
- Co-designing obesity prevention interventions together with children: intervention mapping meets youth-led participatory action research.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2019Article
- Compensation of subjects for participation in biomedical research in resource - limited settings: a discussion of practices in Malawi.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Forming and implementing community advisory boards in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- What motivates gay and bisexual men to participate in PrEP-related research?International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health · 2019Article
- Perceptions of community-based field workers on the effect of a longitudinal biomedical research project on their sustainable livelihoods.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Payment for participation in clinical research: Review of proposals submitted to the ethics committees.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionControversies still exists within the research fraternity on the form and level of incentives, compensation and reimbursement to study participants in resource-constrained settings. While most research activities contribute significantly to advancement of mankind, little has been considered in rewarding directly the research participants from resource-constrained areas.
methodsA study was conducted in Zimbabwe to investigate views and expectations of various stakeholders on study participation incentives, compensation and reimbursement issues. Data was collected using various methods including a survey of about 1,008 parents/guardians of school children participating in various immunological cohort studies and parasitology surveys. Community advisory boards (CABs) at 9 of the sites were also consulted. Further, information was gathered during discussions held at a basic research ethics training workshop. The workshop had 45 participants that including 40 seasoned Zimbabwean researchers and 5 international research collaborators.
resultsAbout 90% (907) of the study participants and guardians expected compensation of reasonable value, in view of the researchers' value and comparison to other sites regardless of economic status of the community. During discussion with researchers at a basic ethics training workshop, about 80% (32) believed that decisions on level of compensation should be determined by the local research ethics committees. While, the few international research collaborators were of the opinion that compensation should be in accordance with local guidelines, and incentives should be in line with funding. Both the CAB members and study participants expressed that there should be a clear distinction between study incentive and compensation accorded to individual and community expectations on benefits from studies. However, CABs expressed that their suggestions on incentives and compensation are often moderated by the regulatory authorities who cite fear of unknown concerns.
conclusionOverall, both personal and community benefits need to be considered collectively in future studies to be conducted in resource-constrained communities. There is projected fear that recruitment in future may be a challenge, now that almost every community, has somehow been reached and participated in some form of studies. A major concern on reimbursement, compensation or incentives should be internationally pegged regardless of different economic status of the individuals or communities where the study is to be conducted.
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.