FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 341:198-203 July 15, 1999 Number 3 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

Successful clinical research depends on the ability to recruit research subjects. Tension between the need to recruit subjects and the obligation to offer them certain types of protection has made recruitment a persistent ethical challenge. One important and difficult issue involves whom investigators should enroll in research studies. A different but equally crucial issue concerns the types of inducement investigators should use to recruit subjects.

For decades, many investigators have paid subjects for participating in research studies, and this practice remains one of the most controversial methods of recruitment.¹ Despite discussions over many years, ethical issues about payment remain unresolved. . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Paying Patients or Healthy Subjects

Three Models of Payment

The Market Model

The Wage-Payment Model

The Reimbursement Model

Applying the Models to a Case

Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Model

The Model of Choice: Wage Payment

Conclusions

References

Related Letters:

What's the Price of a Research Subject?
Saunders C. A., Sugar A. M., Thompson P. D., Weijer C., Yaes R. J., Dickert N., Grady C.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1550-1552, Nov 11, 1999. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Grady, C. (2009). Vulnerability in Research: Individuals with Limited Financial and/or Social Resources.. J Law Med Ethics 37: 19-27  
• Dresser, R. (2009). First-in-Human Trial Participants: Not a Vulnerable Population, but Vulnerable Nonetheless.. J Law Med Ethics 37: 38-50  
• Abdoler, E., Wendler, D. (2009). Reply to the Letter to the Editor from Arai et al.. Clin. Cancer Res. 15: 1121-1121 [Full Text]  
• Iltis, A. S., Matsuo, H., DeVader, S. R. (2008). Currents in contemporary ethics.. J Law Med Ethics 36: 413-418  
• Williams, P. L., Van Dyke, R., Eagle, M., Smith, D., Vincent, C., Ciupak, G., Oleske, J., Seage, G. R. III, for the PACTG 219C Team, (2008). Association of Site-specific and Participant-specific Factors with Retention of Children in a Long-term Pediatric HIV Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol 167: 1375-1386 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Danovitch, G. M (2008). From Helsinki to Istanbul: What can the transplant community learn from experience in clinical research?. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23: 1089-1092 [Full Text]  
• Bagley, S. J., Reynolds, W. W., Nelson, R. M. (2007). Is a "Wage-Payment" Model for Research Participation Appropriate for Children?. Pediatrics 119: 46-51 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jaspers, P., van der Arend, A., Wanders, R. (2006). Inclusion Practice in Lung Cancer Trials. Nurs Ethics 13: 649-660 [Abstract]  
• Iltis, A. S., DeVader, S., Matsuo, H. (2006). Payments to Children and Adolescents Enrolled in Research: A Pilot Study. Pediatrics 118: 1546-1552 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Byrne, M. M., Thompson, P. (2006). Collective Equipoise, Disappointment, and the Therapeutic Misconception: On the Consequences of Selection for Clinical Research. Med Decis Making 26: 467-479 [Abstract]  
• Kimberly, M. B., Hoehn, K. S., Feudtner, C., Nelson, R. M., Schreiner, M. (2006). Variation in Standards of Research Compensation and Child Assent Practices: A Comparison of 69 Institutional Review Board-Approved Informed Permission and Assent Forms for 3 Multicenter Pediatric Clinical Trials. Pediatrics 117: 1706-1711 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Dunn, L. B., Palmer, B. W., Keehan, M., Jeste, D. V., Appelbaum, P. S. (2006). Assessment of Therapeutic Misconception in Older Schizophrenia Patients With a Brief Instrument. Am. J. Psychiatry 163: 500-506 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Dunn, L. B, Candilis, P. J, Roberts, L. W. (2006). Emerging Empirical Evidence on the Ethics of Schizophrenia Research. Schizophr Bull 32: 47-68 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Halpern, S. D (2005). Towards evidence based bioethics. BMJ 331: 901-903 [Full Text]  
• Brody, B. A., McCullough, L. B., Sharp, R. R. (2005). Consensus and Controversy in Clinical Research Ethics. JAMA 294: 1411-1414 [Full Text]  
• Fry, C L, Ritter, A, Baldwin, S, Bowen, K J, Gardiner, P, Holt, T, Jenkinson, R, Johnston, J (2005). Paying research participants: a study of current practices in Australia. J. Med. Ethics 31: 542-547 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Dunn, L. B., Gordon, N. E. (2005). Improving Informed Consent and Enhancing Recruitment for Research by Understanding Economic Behavior. JAMA 293: 609-612 [Full Text]  
• Bentley, J P, Thacker, P G (2004). The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process. J. Med. Ethics 30: 293-298 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mueller, M.-R. (2004). Clinical, Technical, and Social Contingencies and the Decisions of Adults with HIV/AIDS to Enroll in Clinical Trials. Qual Health Res 14: 704-713 [Abstract]  
• Halpern, S. D., Karlawish, J. H. T., Casarett, D., Berlin, J. A., Asch, D. A. (2004). Empirical Assessment of Whether Moderate Payments Are Undue or Unjust Inducements for Participation in Clinical Trials. Arch Intern Med 164: 801-803 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Emanuel, E. J. (2004). Ending Concerns About Undue Inducement. J Law Med Ethics 32: 100-105  
• Berlin, I., Gorelick, D. A. (2003). The French Law on "Protection of Persons Undergoing Biomedical Research": Implications for the U.S.. J Law Med Ethics 31: 434-441  
• Miller, F. G., Rosenstein, D. L. (2003). The Therapeutic Orientation to Clinical Trials. NEJM 348: 1383-1386 [Full Text]  
• Oakes, J. M. (2002). Risks and Wrongs in Social Science Research: An Evaluator's Guide to the IRB. Eval Rev 26: 443-479 [Abstract]  
• Weise, K. L., Smith, M. L., Maschke, K. J., Copeland, H. L. (2002). National Practices Regarding Payment to Research Subjects for Participating in Pediatric Research. Pediatrics 110: 577-582 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Dickert, N., Emanuel, E., Grady, C. (2002). Paying Research Subjects: An Analysis of Current Policies. ANN INTERN MED 136: 368-373 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Tavar, R., Murphy, T. F., Ashburn, T. T., Eisenstein, B. I. (2001). The Case for Compensation of Tissue Donors. Arch Intern Med 161: 1924-1925 [Full Text]  
• Hunt, C. E., Durham, J. K., Guess, S. J., Kapuniai, L. E., Golub, H., and the Collaborative Home Infant Monitoring Evalu, (2001). Telephone Subsidy: An Effective Incentive for Successful Participation in Home Memory Monitor Study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 155: 954-959 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• King, N. M. P. (2000). Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials. J Law Med Ethics 28: 332-343  
• Saunders, C. A., Sugar, A. M., Thompson, P. D., Weijer, C., Yaes, R. J., Dickert, N., Grady, C. (1999). What's the Price of a Research Subject?. NEJM 341: 1550-1552 [Full Text]  
• La Villa, G., Stefani, L., Lazzeri, C., Zurli, C., Guerra, C. T., Barletta, G., Bandinelli, R., Strazzulla, G., Franchi, F. (1995). Acute Effects of Physiological Increments of Brain Natriuretic Peptide in Humans. Hypertension 26: 628-633 [Abstract] [Full Text]