ArticleEthics & human research
Acceptability and Feasibility of Using Educational Incentives for Research Participation to Advance Antiracism.
Article in Ethics & human research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Dissonance-Based Priming Intervention: Randomized Encouragement With in-the-Wild Phishing Simulation Attack in Health Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Acceptability and Feasibility of Using Educational Incentives for Research Participation to Advance Antiracism.Ethics & human researchArticle
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
Nominal cash and gift card incentives provided to research participants have immediate financial benefits but make no lasting improvements to participants' lives or social inequities they might experience. Our study examined the acceptability of offering a nonmonetary educational incentive as an added option to research participants as a potential to advance antiracism and address social inequities. Community members (n = 128) completed a quantitative survey; nine of whom also participated in a qualitative interview. Focus group discussions occurred with 11 researchers. Survey data were analyzed to obtain descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using an iterative process guided by template analysis. Survey participants' mean age was 45 years; 39% were white and 30% were Hispanic/Latinx; 80% were male; 39% had completed some college; 45% had a degree; and 71% reported previous paid participation in a research or community program. Of this group, 80% preferred cash or gift card incentives; 16% preferred an educational incentive; and 88% were likely to extremely likely to use educational incentives. Qualitative data indicated that educational incentives were acceptable but should not replace cash incentives; successful implementation would require organizational support. Noncash educational incentives may be acceptable to research participants and researchers and would help address social inequities. Successful implementation would require further research.
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.