Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32978306›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2020

Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model.

Olivia Grimwade, Julian Savulescu, Alberto Giubilini, Justin Oakley, Joshua Osowicki, Andrew J Pollard, Anne-Marie Nussberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Case for Human Challenge Trials in COVID-19.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Volunteering for Infection: Participant Perspectives on a Hepatitis C Virus Controlled Human Infection Model.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023
    Article
  12. The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Exploring Risks of Human Challenge Trials For COVID-19.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Olivia GrimwadeFaculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK julian.savulescu@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.
Alberto GiubiliniOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Justin OakleyMonash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Joshua OsowickiTropical Diseases Research Group, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew J PollardDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anne-Marie NussbergerDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R005982/1Wellcome Trust 104848Wellcome Trust 104848/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) research involves the infection of otherwise healthy participants with disease often for the sake of vaccine development. The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the urgency of enhancing CHIM research capability and the importance of having clear ethical guidance for their conduct. The payment of CHIM participants is a controversial issue involving stakeholders across ethics, medicine and policymaking with allegations circulating suggesting exploitation, coercion and other violations of ethical principles. There are multiple approaches to payment: reimbursement, wage payment and unlimited payment. We introduce a new Payment for Risk Model, which involves paying for time, pain and inconvenience and for risk associated with participation. We give philosophical arguments based on utility, fairness and avoidance of exploitation to support this. We also examine a cross-section of the UK public and CHIM experts. We found that CHIM participants are currently paid variable amounts. A representative sample of the UK public believes CHIM participants should be paid approximately triple the UK minimum wage and should be paid for the risk they endure throughout participation. CHIM experts believe CHIM participants should be paid more than double the UK minimum wage but are divided on the payment for risk. The Payment for Risk Model allows risk and pain to be accounted for in payment and could be used to determine ethically justifiable payment for CHIM participants.Although many research guidelines warn against paying large amounts or paying for risk, our empirical findings provide empirical support to the growing number of ethical arguments challenging this status quo. We close by suggesting two ways (value of statistical life or consistency with risk in other employment) by which payment for risk could be calculated.

Indexed as

AttitudeBiomedical ResearchCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesHealthy VolunteersHumansPandemicsPublic OpinionRemunerationSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 Vaccinescoercionresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID32978306
PMCPMC7719900

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.