Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34817381›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2021

Evaluating the Impact of Incentives on Clinical Trial Participation: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Community-Engaged Study.

Jerome T Galea, Karah Y Greene, Brandon Nguyen, Andrea N Polonijo, Karine Dubé, Jeff Taylor, Christopher Christensen, Zhiwei Zhang, Brandon Brown

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04809636 (Evaluating the Impact of Incentives on HIV Related Clinical Trial Participation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT04809636 unknown statusnot on this map

Evaluating the Impact of Incentives on HIV Related Clinical Trial Participation

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of California, RiversideRan2021 to 2022Enrolled360ConditionsHiv, Aging, IncentivesArmsThis is not an interventional study
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

9 authors.

Jerome T GaleaSchool of Social Work, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8732-6959
Karah Y Greene *School of Social Work, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3077-1426
Brandon NguyenDepartment of Social Medicine, Population and Public Health, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3053-9627
Andrea N PolonijoDepartment of Sociology, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4706-3482
Karine DubéGillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3458-1539
Jeff TaylorHIV+Aging Research Project-Palm Springs, Palm Springs, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1108-2385
Christopher ChristensenHIV+Aging Research Project-Palm Springs, Palm Springs, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8138-1217
Zhiwei ZhangDepartment of Statistics, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3187-9180
Brandon BrownDepartment of Social Medicine, Population and Public Health, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6348-4108

Funding

Training Program for Scientists Conducting Research to Reduce HIV Health DisparitR25MH067127 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Emily A Arnold, Torsten Brian Neilands · 2003 to 2026
$5.4M
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH067127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonetary incentives in research are frequently used to support participant recruitment and retention. However, there are scant empirical data regarding how researchers decide upon the type and amount of incentives offered. Likewise, there is little guidance to assist study investigators and institutional review boards (IRBs) in their decision-making on incentives. Monetary incentives, in addition to other factors such as the risk of harm or other intangible benefits, guide individuals' decisions to enroll in research studies. These factors emphasize the need for evidence-informed guidance for study investigators and IRBs when determining the type and amount of incentives to provide to research participants.

objectiveThe specific aims of our research project are to (1) characterize key stakeholders' views on and assessments of incentives in biomedical HIV research; (2) reach consensus among stakeholders on the factors that are considered when choosing research incentives, including consensus on the relative importance of such factors; and (3) pilot-test the use of the guidance developed via aims 1 and 2 by presenting stakeholders with vignettes of hypothetical research studies for which they will choose corresponding incentive types.

methodsOur 2-year study will involve monthly, active engagement with a stakeholder advisory board of people living with HIV, researchers, and IRB members. For aim 1, we will conduct a nationwide survey (N=300) among people living with HIV to understand their views regarding the incentives used in HIV research. For aim 2, we will collect qualitative data by conducting focus groups with people living with HIV (n=60) and key informant interviews with stakeholders involved in HIV research (people living with HIV, IRB members, and biomedical HIV researchers: n=36) to extend and deepen our understanding of how incentives in HIV research are perceived. These participants will also complete a conjoint analysis experiment to gain an understanding of the relative importance of key HIV research study attributes and the impact that these attributes have on study participation. The data from the nationwide survey (aim 1) will be triangulated with the qualitative and conjoint analysis data (aim 2) to create 25 vignettes that describe hypothetical HIV research studies. Finally, individuals from each stakeholder group will select the most appropriate incentive that they feel should be used in each of the 25 vignettes (aim 3).

resultsThe stakeholder advisory board began monthly meetings in March 2021. All study aims are expected to be completed by December 2022.

conclusionsBy studying the role of incentives in HIV clinical trial participation, we will establish a decision-making paradigm to guide the choice of incentives for HIV research and, eventually, other types of similar research and facilitate the ethical recruitment of clinical research participants.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04809636; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04809636. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/33608.

Indexed as

ethicsHIVincentivesresearch participationstakeholder advisory board

Identifiers

PMID34817381
PMCPMC8663586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.