Heterogeneity in IRB Policies with Regard to Disclosures about Payment for Participation in Recruitment Materials

Megan S. Wright, Christopher T Robertson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although the Federal Common Rule requires that informed consent documents include all material information, it does not specify the content of materials used to recruit human subjects. In particular, there is no federal regulation relating to how payment for research participation is to be advertised. Rather, the FDA has issued guidance, advising researchers not to emphasize payment information. In order to determine how IRBs have interpreted this guidance, we coded the policies of the top 100 institutions by receipt of NIH funding, in order to determine whether they require, permit, or forbid researchers to disclose the amount of compensation in their recruitment materials. We found that the vast majority of institutions implicitly or explicitly permit such disclosures; however, there are a significant number of IRBs at each extreme, some discouraging or forbidding with others encouraging or mandating such disclosures. Such heterogeneity in local regulations suggests that IRB discretion may be imposing costs on human subjects and the scientific enterprise that outweigh the benefits. We suggest that this heterogeneity should be resolved towards a national consensus on permissibility.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)375-382
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Law, Medicine and Ethics
Volume42
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2014

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Disclosure
Research Personnel
Consent Forms
Compensation and Redress
Consensus
Costs and Cost Analysis
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Cite this

Heterogeneity in IRB Policies with Regard to Disclosures about Payment for Participation in Recruitment Materials. / Wright, Megan S.; Robertson, Christopher T.

In: Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Vol. 42, No. 3, 01.09.2014, p. 375-382.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{328c8cf011a341bc842c9e0871116b6a,
title = "Heterogeneity in IRB Policies with Regard to Disclosures about Payment for Participation in Recruitment Materials",
abstract = "Although the Federal Common Rule requires that informed consent documents include all material information, it does not specify the content of materials used to recruit human subjects. In particular, there is no federal regulation relating to how payment for research participation is to be advertised. Rather, the FDA has issued guidance, advising researchers not to emphasize payment information. In order to determine how IRBs have interpreted this guidance, we coded the policies of the top 100 institutions by receipt of NIH funding, in order to determine whether they require, permit, or forbid researchers to disclose the amount of compensation in their recruitment materials. We found that the vast majority of institutions implicitly or explicitly permit such disclosures; however, there are a significant number of IRBs at each extreme, some discouraging or forbidding with others encouraging or mandating such disclosures. Such heterogeneity in local regulations suggests that IRB discretion may be imposing costs on human subjects and the scientific enterprise that outweigh the benefits. We suggest that this heterogeneity should be resolved towards a national consensus on permissibility.",
author = "Wright, {Megan S.} and Robertson, {Christopher T}",
year = "2014",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jlme.12153",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "375--382",
journal = "Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics",
issn = "1073-1105",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Heterogeneity in IRB Policies with Regard to Disclosures about Payment for Participation in Recruitment Materials

AU - Wright, Megan S.

AU - Robertson, Christopher T

PY - 2014/9/1

Y1 - 2014/9/1

N2 - Although the Federal Common Rule requires that informed consent documents include all material information, it does not specify the content of materials used to recruit human subjects. In particular, there is no federal regulation relating to how payment for research participation is to be advertised. Rather, the FDA has issued guidance, advising researchers not to emphasize payment information. In order to determine how IRBs have interpreted this guidance, we coded the policies of the top 100 institutions by receipt of NIH funding, in order to determine whether they require, permit, or forbid researchers to disclose the amount of compensation in their recruitment materials. We found that the vast majority of institutions implicitly or explicitly permit such disclosures; however, there are a significant number of IRBs at each extreme, some discouraging or forbidding with others encouraging or mandating such disclosures. Such heterogeneity in local regulations suggests that IRB discretion may be imposing costs on human subjects and the scientific enterprise that outweigh the benefits. We suggest that this heterogeneity should be resolved towards a national consensus on permissibility.

AB - Although the Federal Common Rule requires that informed consent documents include all material information, it does not specify the content of materials used to recruit human subjects. In particular, there is no federal regulation relating to how payment for research participation is to be advertised. Rather, the FDA has issued guidance, advising researchers not to emphasize payment information. In order to determine how IRBs have interpreted this guidance, we coded the policies of the top 100 institutions by receipt of NIH funding, in order to determine whether they require, permit, or forbid researchers to disclose the amount of compensation in their recruitment materials. We found that the vast majority of institutions implicitly or explicitly permit such disclosures; however, there are a significant number of IRBs at each extreme, some discouraging or forbidding with others encouraging or mandating such disclosures. Such heterogeneity in local regulations suggests that IRB discretion may be imposing costs on human subjects and the scientific enterprise that outweigh the benefits. We suggest that this heterogeneity should be resolved towards a national consensus on permissibility.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84910050783&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84910050783&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jlme.12153

DO - 10.1111/jlme.12153

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 375

EP - 382

JO - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

JF - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

SN - 1073-1105

IS - 3

ER -