Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26010783›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Benefits in cash or in kind? A community consultation on types of benefits in health research on the Kenyan Coast.

Maureen Njue, Sassy Molyneux, Francis Kombe, Salim Mwalukore, Dorcas Kamuya, Vicki Marsh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Legal and ethical issues in research.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2016
    Review
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.

Maureen NjueKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, PO Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya.
Sassy MolyneuxKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, PO Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya; Centre for Tropical Medicine, Nuffield Department of Medicine Research Building, Oxford University, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7FZ, United Kingdom; Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom.
Francis KombeKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, PO Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya.
Salim MwalukoreKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, PO Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya.
Dorcas KamuyaKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, PO Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya; Centre for Tropical Medicine, Nuffield Department of Medicine Research Building, Oxford University, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7FZ, United Kingdom; Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom.
Vicki MarshKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, PO Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya; Centre for Tropical Medicine, Nuffield Department of Medicine Research Building, Oxford University, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7FZ, United Kingdom; Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 092654/Z/10/AWellcome Trust WT085418
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding benefits and payments to participants in health research, either in cash or in kind, is a common but ethically controversial practice. While much literature has concentrated on appropriate levels of benefits or payments, this paper focuses on less well explored ethical issues around the nature of study benefits, drawing on views of community members living close to an international health research centre in Kenya.

methodsThe consultation, including 90 residents purposively chosen to reflect diversity, used a two-stage deliberative process. Five half-day workshops were each followed by between two and four small group discussions, within a two week period (total 16 groups). During workshops and small groups, facilitators used participatory methods to share information, and promote reflection and debate on ethical issues around types of benefits, including cash, goods, medical and community benefits. Data from workshop and field notes, and voice recordings of small group discussions, were managed using Nvivo 10 and analysed using a Framework Analysis approach. FINDINGS AND

conclusionsThe methods generated in-depth discussion with high levels of engagement. Particularly for the most-poor, under-compensation of time in research carries risks of serious harm. Cash payments may best support compensation of costs experienced; while highly valued, goods and medical benefits may be more appropriate as an 'appreciation' or incentive for participation. Community benefits were seen as important in supporting but not replacing individual-level benefits, and in building trust in researcher-community relations. Cash payments were seen to have higher risks of undue inducement, commercialising relationships and generating family conflicts than other benefits, particularly where payments are high. Researchers should consider and account for burdens families may experience when children are involved in research. Careful context-specific research planning and skilled and consistent communication about study benefits and payments are important, including in mitigating potential negative effects.

Indexed as

EducationEthics, MedicalFemaleHuman ExperimentationHumansKenyaMaleReimbursement Mechanisms

Identifiers

PMID26010783
PMCPMC4444261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.