ArticlePloS one2015
Benefits in cash or in kind? A community consultation on types of benefits in health research on the Kenyan Coast.
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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community responses to a novel house design: A qualitative study of "Star Homes" in Mtwara, southeastern Tanzania.PloS one · 2025Article
- Does financial compensation matter for research participation in prevention trials in Tanzania? Perspectives of healthy volunteers.PloS one · 2025Article
- Layered vulnerability and researchers' responsibilities: learning from research involving Kenyan adolescents living with perinatal HIV infection.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Culturally responsive research ethics: How the socio-ethical norms of Arr-nar/Kreng-jai inform research participation at the Thai-Myanmar border.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Ethical considerations around volunteer payments in a malaria human infection study in Kenya: an embedded empirical ethics study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Community engagement for the Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC) program: an analysis of key stakeholder roles to promote a sustainable program in Zambia.Gates open research · 2022Article
- A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Model for developing context-sensitive responses to vulnerability in research: managing ethical dilemmas faced by frontline research staff in Kenya.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Considering the Importance of Context for Ethical Practice on Reimbursement, Compensation and Incentives for Volunteers in Human Infection Controlled Studies.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2021Article
- Participant compensation in global health research: a case study.International health · 2020Article
- Towards a fair and transparent research participant compensation and reimbursement framework in Vietnam.International health · 2020Article
- Compensation of subjects for participation in biomedical research in resource - limited settings: a discussion of practices in Malawi.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- The challenge of community engagement and informed consent in rural Zambia: an example from a pilot study.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Evolution of a programme to engage school students with health research and science in Kenya.Wellcome open research · 2019Article
- Initiating a network to support engagement between health researchers and schools: recommendations from an international meeting of schools engagement practitioners held in Kilifi, Kenya.Wellcome open research · 2019Article
- Compensating control participants when the intervention is of significant value: experience in Guatemala, India, Peru and Rwanda.BMJ global health · 2019Review
- Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2018Article
- A Malawi guideline for research study participant remuneration.Wellcome open research · 2018Article
- Gendered negotiations for research participation in community-based studies: implications for health research policy and practice.BMJ global health · 2017Article
- Legal and ethical issues in research.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.