ArticleJournal of medical ethics2020
Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model.
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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- An Ethical Analysis of Public Attitudes towards Controlled Human Infection Studies in Singapore: Acceptability and Payment.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Balancing altruism, risk and ethics: Vietnamese students' views on human challenge studies.PloS one · 2026Article
- Conflicting perspectives on what constitutes fair compensation and benefits among research stakeholders in Malawi.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Engineered Mycobacterium tuberculosis triple-kill-switch strain provides controlled tuberculosis infection in animal models.Nature microbiology · 2025Article
- Experiences, perceptions and ethical considerations of the malaria infection study in Thailand.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- The Case for Human Challenge Trials in COVID-19.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Impact of financial compensation on enrollment and participation in a remote, mobile-app based research study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Ethical acceptability of human challenge trials: Consultation with the US public and with research personnel.PloS one · 2024Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- Ethical considerations around volunteer payments in a malaria human infection study in Kenya: an embedded empirical ethics study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Spoonful of honey or a gallon of vinegar? A conditional COVID-19 vaccination policy for front-line healthcare workers.Journal of medical ethics · 2021Article
- Stopping exploitation: Properly remunerating healthcare workers for risk in the COVID-19 pandemic.Bioethics · 2021Article
- Exploring Risks of Human Challenge Trials For COVID-19.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2021Article
- Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?Journal of medical ethics · 2021Article
- "At first, I was very afraid"-a qualitative description of participants' views and experiences in the first Human Infection Study in Malawi.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Payment in challenge studies from an economics perspective.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Should practice and policy be revised to allow for risk-proportional payment to human challenge study participants?Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.