ArticleContemporary clinical trials2019
Randomized evaluation of trial acceptability by INcentive (RETAIN): Study protocol for two embedded randomized controlled trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02697799 (A Randomized Trial of Recruitment Strategies for Research Participation), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
A Randomized Trial of Recruitment Strategies for Research Participation
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Behaviorally Designed Gamification With a Social Support Partner to Increase Mobility After Hospital Discharge: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Behavioral Nudges to Improve Enrollment in Critical Care Trials.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2020Trial
- Impact of financial compensation on enrollment and participation in a remote, mobile-app based research study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Participants' Perspectives on Payment for Research Participation: A Qualitative Study.Ethics & human research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe most common and conceptually sound ethical concerns with financial incentives for research participation are that they may (1) represent undue inducements by blunting peoples' perceptions of research risks, thereby preventing fully informed consent; or (2) represent unjust inducements by encouraging enrollment preferentially among the poor. Neither of these concerns has been shown to manifest in studies testing the effects of incentives on decisions to participate in hypothetical randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but neither has been assessed in real RCTs. METHODS AND ANALYSES: We are conducting randomized trials of real incentives embedded within two parent RCTs. In each of two trials conducted in parallel, we are randomizing 576 participants to one of three incentive groups. Following preliminary determination of patients' eligibility in the parent RCT, we assess patients' research attitudes, demographic characteristics, perceived research risks, time spent reviewing consent documents, ability to distinguish research from patient care, and comprehension of key trial features. These quantitative assessments will be supplemented by semi-structured interviews for a selected group of participants that more deeply explore patients' motivations for trial participation. The trials are each designed to have adequate power to rule out undue and unjust inducement. We are also exploring potential benefits of incentives, including possible increased attention to research risks and cost-effectiveness.
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.