Research studies play a vital role in advancing knowledge and improving human well-being, but they rely heavily on the willingness of individuals to participate. From clinical trials testing new medical treatments to sociological surveys that uncover social dynamics, researchers frequently depend on participants who dedicate their time, energy, and sometimes even their physical or emotional comfort. To acknowledge this effort, researchers often offer compensation, which raises important ethical questions and expectations.
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) plays a pivotal role in this process, ensuring that research adheres to ethical principles and safeguards the rights and welfare of participants. One of its key considerations is the design of participant compensation plans. Although seemingly straightforward, compensating participants requires careful navigation of ethical dilemmas, particularly around the risk of “undue influence,” a term used to describe incentives that may coerce individuals into participating against their better judgment according to the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (NCPHS, 1979).
Compensation is more than just a transactional element in research—it serves as a recognition of the participants’ contributions and a means of ensuring diversity in study enrollment. Without fair and appropriate incentives, certain demographics, particularly those with fewer resources, may be excluded from research, leading to biased results and ethical concerns about justice and equity (Grady, 2005). However, while compensating participants acknowledges their involvement, it must not cross the fine line into exploitation or coercion.
The ethical principle of autonomy requires direct engagement so that participants can freely decide whether to take part in research without pressure or manipulation. Excessive incentives—whether monetary, material or otherwise—could compromise this autonomy by making participation irresistible, especially for economically disadvantaged individuals (Largent et al., 2012). On the other hand, inadequate compensation might undervalue participants’ contributions, creating a different but equally problematic ethical issue.
The IRB’s role in reviewing compensation plans stems from these ethical considerations. The Belmont Report, a foundational document for research ethics, emphasizes three key principles—respect for persons, beneficence, and justice—as guiding frameworks for participant compensation (NCPHSBBR, 1979). Respect for persons necessitates informed and voluntary participation; beneficence ensures that research minimizes harm while maximizing benefits; and justice ensures equitable selection and treatment of participants.
Achieving this balance isn’t just about meeting regulatory requirements—it’s about fostering trust between researchers and participants through expertise and care in handling the process. Compensation reflects how researchers value their participants, and a thoughtfully designed incentive structure can signal respect, fairness, and commitment to ethical standards.
By understanding what the IRB expects when it comes to participant compensation, researchers can design studies that not only meet ethical and legal requirements but also promote meaningful and equitable participation. The remainder of this post explores the ethical principles, common challenges, and practical strategies for crafting participant incentives that align with both IRB expectations and the broader goals of ethical research.
Ethical Principles Governing Incentives
Participant compensation is fundamentally linked to several key ethical principles with clear paths that guide research involving human subjects. These principles—justice, autonomy, and beneficence—serve as a framework for determining what is fair, appropriate, and ethical in the design of incentives. The IRB evaluates compensation plans with these principles to ensure that incentives neither exploit nor unduly influence participants. Below, let’s discuss these principles, with detailed breakdowns of their implications for participant compensation.
Justice: Ensuring Fairness in Compensation
The principle of justice requires that researchers treat participants equitably, ensuring that the benefits and burdens of research are fairly distributed. This principle addresses inclusivity, diversity, and economic fairness in participant incentives.
- Equity in Distribution of Research Opportunities: Compensation plans should ensure fairness across socioeconomic groups. Grady (2005) highlighted that offering significantly high payments might disproportionately attract individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, raising concerns about exploitation and equity.
- Avoiding Discrimination: Compensation plans must avoid discrimination by offering uniform incentives across diverse groups unless justified by the study design (e.g., additional compensation for higher-risk procedures). Disparities in payment may signal a lack of respect or fairness, as noted by Grady (2005).
Autonomy: Respecting Participant Freedom
The principle of autonomy underscores the importance of informed consent and the participant’s right to make voluntary decisions without coercion or undue influence.
- Informed Consent and Transparent Communication: According to Largent et al. (2012), participants must fully understand the nature and scope of compensation to ensure they can make informed decisions. Ambiguous or misleading descriptions of incentives do not foster collaboration, undermine autonomy, and can lead to misunderstandings about the purpose of the research.
- Avoiding Undue Influence: Largent et al. (2012) also noted that excessive compensation, particularly for low-risk studies, can pressure individuals into participation by creating a sense of obligation.
- Voluntariness vs. Coercion: Incentives should encourage participation without making it feel mandatory or manipulative. For example, offering incentives that significantly exceed the local average income could be interpreted as coercive, as indicated by Largent et al. (2012).
Beneficence: Minimizing Harm, Maximizing Benefit
Beneficence focuses on minimizing harm to participants and maximizing the benefits of research, both for individuals and society. Incentives should align with this principle by promoting well-being and avoiding harm or exploitation.
- Avoiding Exploitation Through Fair Valuation: Grady (2005) emphasized that compensation must reflect the effort, time, and inconvenience participants experience. Undervalued incentives may exploit participants, particularly in lengthy or burdensome studies.
- Ensuring Incentives Do Not Compromise Well-Being: Emanuel et al. (2000) noted that incentives should not encourage participants to take risks they would otherwise avoid. For instance, offering a large payment for a high-risk procedure might lead individuals to prioritize financial gain over personal safety.
- Encouraging Positive Participation: According to Grady (2005), appropriate incentives can foster collaboration and a sense of value among participants. When participants feel adequately compensated, they are more likely to engage meaningfully with the study, benefiting both research outcomes and participant satisfaction.
Balancing the Principles in Practice
The IRB evaluates participant compensation plans against these ethical principles, aiming to strike a balance between fairness, autonomy, and beneficence. The human subject review board demands that researchers navigate the following considerations:
- How much is too much? Excessive compensation risks undue influence, while inadequate compensation risks undervaluing participant contributions.
- Who benefits? Compensation structures must promote inclusivity and equitable distribution of research opportunities.
- Is the offer clear? Transparency in describing incentives ensures that participants make informed decisions free from manipulation or coercion.
In essence, ethical compensation goes beyond merely meeting regulatory standards; it reflects a commitment to fairness, respect, and the overall well-being of participants.
What Constitutes Undue Influence?
Undue influence in research occurs when the offer of compensation or other incentives is so compelling that it impairs a participant’s ability to make a voluntary and informed decision about their involvement. This concern is central to ethical research practices and is closely monitored by IRBs. The challenge lies in distinguishing between appropriate incentives that encourage participation and those that exert undue pressure, particularly on vulnerable populations.
Definition and Key Characteristics
Undue influence is characterized by an offer that is excessively attractive, leading individuals to participate in research against their better judgment. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (UDHHS) (2019) notes that undue influence can occur through an offer of an excessive or inappropriate reward or other overture to obtain compliance. This means that if the incentive is so substantial that it compromises a person’s ability to weigh the risks and benefits of participation, it constitutes undue influence.
Types of Undue Influence
- Excessive Financial Incentives
Offering financial compensation that far exceeds the effort or time required for participation can create undue pressure, especially for individuals in financial need. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2012) cautions that payments should not be so large as to induce prospective subjects to consent to participate in the research against their better judgment. - Targeting Vulnerable Populations
Vulnerable groups, such as economically disadvantaged individuals or those with limited access to healthcare, may be more susceptible to undue influence. UDHHS (2019) emphasizes that IRB services must be sensitive to whether aspects of proposed payment for participation could present an undue influence, thus interfering with the potential subjects’ ability to give voluntary informed consent. - Misrepresentation of Risks and Benefits
Undue influence may also arise from a lack of transparency and a clear path about the risks and benefits of the study. UDHHS (2019) advises that known benefits should be stated accurately, but not exaggerated, and potential or uncertain benefits should be clearly communicated to ensure informed consent.
Why Undue Influence Matters
The principle of autonomy is at the heart of concerns about undue influence. UDHHS (2019) highlights that undue influence can interfere with the potential subjects’ ability to give voluntary informed consent, thereby compromising the ethical integrity of the research process. When participants are unduly influenced, their capacity to make an autonomous decision is undermined, leading them to take on risks they might otherwise avoid.
How to Avoid Undue Influence
- Designing Proportionate Incentives
Compensation should reflect the time, effort, and inconvenience associated with participation without exceeding what is reasonable. The University of Oxford (2020) advises that compensation should be proportionate to the burden of the research on the participant and the duration of study involvement. - Ensuring Transparency
Providing clear, detailed information about the study’s risks, benefits, and compensation structure allows participants to make informed decisions. UDHHS (2019) recommends that information to be disclosed to potential subjects should ensure that the incentives and how they will be provided are clearly described. - Implementing Safeguards for Vulnerable Groups
Additional protections should be in place for populations at higher risk of undue influence, such as enhanced informed consent processes or IRB-mandated reviews of incentive structures. UDHHS (2019) suggests that IRBs may restrict levels of financial or nonfinancial incentives for participation to minimize the likelihood of undue influence.
The line between appropriate incentives and undue influence is often subjective, varying across cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Researchers must carefully design their compensation strategies to encourage participation while respecting autonomy. Avoiding undue influence requires both ethical foresight and a commitment to participant welfare.
Guidelines for Appropriate Incentives
When compensating research participants, it is crucial that IRB services ensure that the researcher has expertise and care in handling the process and incentives are fair, ethical, and appropriate to the study’s nature and participant contribution. The goal is to design compensation strategies that acknowledge participants’ efforts while avoiding coercion. Below are detailed guidelines with in-text citations highlighting the insights from scholarly sources.
Align Compensation with Participant Commitment
Compensation should match the time, effort, and inconvenience participants endure. According to the University of California, Berkeley, payments should reflect the tasks involved, ensuring fairness and respect for participants’ contributions (UC Berkeley, 2022).
- Time Investment: Studies requiring longer participation or multiple sessions should offer higher compensation compared to brief, single-session studies.
- Task Complexity: The complexity of tasks or significant cognitive effort should also factor into compensation plans, ensuring participants feel their contributions are valued.
- Inconvenience and Discomfort: The University of California, Berkeley notes that research involving discomfort or inconvenience should account for these in compensation levels (UC Berkeley, 2022).
Ensure Voluntariness and Avoid Coercion
It is important that compensation encourages participation without becoming so enticing that it compromises voluntariness. UDHHS highlights that compensation should not exert undue influence, ensuring that participants retain the ability to make informed decisions without pressure (UDHHS, 2019). Compensation details should be clearly explained to ensure participants understand their rights, including the ability to withdraw without penalty or loss of payment.
Maintain Ethical Standards with Vulnerable Populations
Compensation practices must be especially cautious when involving vulnerable groups. The Tri-Council Policy Statement highlights that respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice are essential in designing incentives for these populations (Tri-Council, 2020).
- Tailored Compensation: Compensation should consider the unique circumstances of vulnerable populations without appearing coercive.
- Additional Safeguards: The Tri-Council notes the importance of implementing measures such as extended consent processes or community consultations to ensure fairness and protect participant autonomy (Tri-Council, 2020).
Be Transparent About Compensation Details
Transparency in compensation builds trust, supports informed consent, and fosters collaboration. According to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), participants should be informed about payment amounts, schedules, and any associated conditions before enrolling in a study (UCLA, 2021).
- Detailed Information: Clear descriptions of how and when compensation will be provided prevent misunderstandings and eliminate obstacles.
- Prorated Payments: UCLA highlights the importance of offering prorated payments, allowing participants to receive fair compensation even if they withdraw from the study (UCLA, 2021).
Consider Non-Monetary Incentives
Non-monetary incentives can be appropriate and appreciated in some contexts. The London School of Economics notes that alternative incentives, such as gift cards or access to study findings, can be effective when designed ethically (LSE, 2020).
- Gifts or Vouchers: Offering vouchers or gifts can be a meaningful way to acknowledge participant contributions while minimizing risks of coercion.
- Access to Study Results: Providing participants with a summary of research findings fosters engagement and a sense of contribution.
Document and Justify Compensation Plans
Compensation strategies must be thoroughly documented and justified for ethical oversight. The University of Alberta highlights the importance of maintaining clear records to detail the rationale behind compensation amounts and methods (University of Alberta, 2009).
- Ethics Approval: Researchers must obtain approval for compensation plans from their Institutional Review Board (IRB) or independent IRB.
- Ongoing Review: The University of Alberta recommends being open to adjustments in compensation strategies based on feedback or IRB recommendations.
By adhering to these guidelines, researchers can design compensation strategies that respect participants’ contributions, maintain ethical integrity, and align with regulatory requirements.
Vulnerable Populations and Special Considerations
When conducting research involving vulnerable populations, it’s essential to approach the process with extra care and sensitivity. Vulnerable populations can include children, the elderly, individuals with disabilities or cognitive impairments, economically disadvantaged groups, and others who might face challenges in understanding or consenting to research. According to the UK Research and Innovation Council, vulnerability can stem from age, social circumstances, or imbalances of power, requiring researchers to implement ethical safeguards to protect these participants (UKRI, 2021).
Enhanced Informed Consent Processes
- Simplified Communication: A clear path of communication is critical for ensuring that vulnerable participants understand what they are agreeing to. Complex language or overly technical terms can create confusion, so using plain language, illustrations, or videos can make study details more accessible. According to SAGE Research Methods (2019), employing tools like visual aids or interactive methods ensures that participants fully comprehend the purpose, risks, and benefits of the study, leading to truly informed consent.
- Assessing Understanding: Simply obtaining a signature on a consent form is not enough when dealing with vulnerable groups. Researchers should ask follow-up questions or use teach-back methods to confirm that participants understand the study’s scope and implications. For example, asking participants to explain the study in their own words can help identify misunderstandings and provide opportunities for clarification.
- Ongoing Consent: Consent should not be treated as a one-time checkbox but as an ongoing process, especially in long-term studies. Vulnerable participants might change their minds or face new challenges over time, and researchers must respect their autonomy throughout the study. Regularly revisiting consent ensures that participants remain comfortable and engaged, fostering trust and collaboration between the researcher and the participant.
Risk-Benefit Analysis
- Minimizing Risk: Reducing risks to vulnerable participants is a non-negotiable priority. This can involve modifying study protocols to eliminate unnecessary discomfort or harm, such as reducing invasive procedures or shortening lengthy participation requirements. As highlighted by the University College Cork (2019), researchers must critically evaluate every aspect of their study to ensure that any risks are justified and mitigated.
- Maximizing Benefit: Research involving vulnerable groups should clearly demonstrate how it will provide meaningful benefits to participants or society. For instance, a study involving children should ideally lead to knowledge or interventions that improve pediatric health outcomes. If the benefits do not outweigh the risks, it is a signal that the study design needs revision to better serve participants.
- Equitable Selection: Vulnerable populations should only be included when their participation is essential to the research question. The UKRI (2021) emphasizes that vulnerable groups should not be used for convenience but rather because their involvement is crucial to the study’s objectives. Additionally, through the top tire services of IRB, researchers can ensure that the burden of participation is not disproportionately placed on these groups. This can be ensured by top tire IRB services
Additional Safeguards
- Independent Monitoring: Studies involving vulnerable participants should include an independent monitoring process to ensure ethical practices are followed. Oversight by a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) or similar body provides an impartial perspective on the study’s progress and safeguards participant welfare. This type of monitoring is particularly valuable in identifying unforeseen risks or ethical concerns as the study unfolds.
- Community Engagement: Including representatives from vulnerable groups in the research planning process can significantly improve the study’s design and execution. Community input can help researchers address cultural sensitivities, identify potential risks, and develop strategies to make participation more inclusive. For example, engaging caregivers in the planning of research involving dementia patients ensures that their unique needs are accounted for.
- Confidentiality Protections: Protecting the privacy of vulnerable participants is a fundamental aspect of ethical research. According to the University College Cork (2019), researchers should implement robust data security measures and limit access to sensitive information. This is particularly critical when working with populations that may face stigma or discrimination if their participation becomes known.
Transparency and Disclosure in Compensation: Building Trust Through Clear Communication
One of the foundational elements of ethical research is transparency. When it comes to participant compensation, transparency isn’t just about being upfront about the “what”—what participants will receive—it’s also about clearly communicating the “how” and “why.” This principle goes hand-in-hand with informed consent, a cornerstone of ethical research outlined in the Belmont Report (NCPHS, 1979). Participants need to fully understand the nature of their compensation so they can make an informed and voluntary decision to participate.
The Role of Disclosure in Ethical Research
Full disclosure of compensation involves more than a line in the consent form stating the amount or type of incentive offered. Researchers must articulate key details, such as:
- The form of compensation: Whether it’s monetary payment, gift cards, reimbursement for expenses, or access to study-related benefits like free healthcare.
- When and how compensation will be provided: For example, will payments be made in installments, upon completion of the study, or after certain milestones are achieved?
This transparency protects participants from unexpected surprises or perceived exploitation. For instance, if a participant completes part of a study but becomes ineligible to continue, clear communication about partial compensation ensures they feel respected and valued for their contribution.
Avoiding Misunderstandings or Mistrust
Lack of transparency can lead to confusion or even mistrust among participants. Imagine a situation where a participant joins a lengthy clinical trial expecting substantial compensation, only to find out later that the majority of payment hinges on completing the final stage, which they are unable to attend. Such misunderstandings not only create tension but also violate the ethical principle of respect for persons (Grady, 2005). Participants must never feel tricked or coerced into participation due to unclear or misleading information about compensation. The unbeatable value of transparent communication is that it reduces the likelihood of perceived coercion. If participants understand exactly what compensation entails and that they can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, they are more likely to perceive the incentive as fair and non-coercive.
Communicating Compensation Effectively
The method of communication matters just as much as the content. Compensation details should be presented in plain language, avoiding technical jargon or ambiguous terms. It’s also crucial to provide opportunities for participants to ask questions about compensation during the consent process. This two-way dialogue helps ensure that participants fully understand their rights and benefits. Moreover, ethical researchers should consider cultural and contextual factors that might affect how participants interpret compensation. For example, in some communities, gift cards might be perceived as less valuable than cash, or non-monetary incentives may carry different cultural meanings. Transparent discussions during recruitment and consent help address these differences.
The IRB closely evaluates how researchers disclose compensation details. An incomplete or vague description can delay study approval, as the IRB needs to ensure that compensation aligns with ethical guidelines and does not undermine informed consent. By providing comprehensive and clear documentation, researchers demonstrate their commitment to respecting participants’ autonomy and upholding the ethical integrity of their study. Transparency and disclosure in participant compensation aren’t just bureaucratic requirements—they are essential components of ethical research practice. By clearly outlining all aspects of compensation, researchers foster trust, support informed decision-making, and align with the ethical standards set by the IRB. In doing so, they create a foundation for respectful and equitable partnerships with their participants.
IRB Evaluation Criteria for Incentives: What Researchers Need to Know
When designing a study, researchers often focus on crafting robust methodologies and ensuring compliance with ethical standards. However, one area that can be particularly scrutinized by the IRB is participant incentives. Incentives are not merely a logistical detail—they are a critical ethical consideration that can significantly influence a participant’s decision to join a study. The IRB offers expertise and care in handling the process as it evaluates these incentives to ensure they promote fairness and respect autonomy. This section explores the key criteria the IRB uses to evaluate participant incentives and provides insights to help researchers navigate this process effectively.
Reasonableness and Proportionality
The IRB offers efficient, stress-free service as they assess whether the proposed compensation is reasonable and proportional to the time, effort, and inconvenience required from participants. For example, a simple survey study with minimal time commitment may warrant modest compensation, while a clinical trial involving multiple visits, invasive procedures, or significant time investment would justify higher rewards (Ripley et al., 2010). In determining proportionality, the IRB considers:
- The complexity and demands of the study: More intensive studies warrant higher compensation.
- The population being studied: Vulnerable populations, such as economically disadvantaged groups, require particular scrutiny to avoid creating undue influence.
Clarity in Incentive Structure
The IRB, through a comprehensive, bespoke approach, looks for clear and transparent details about how and when participants will receive their compensation. According to Emanuel et al. (2000), transparency ensures that participants fully understand the terms of compensation and helps prevent misunderstandings that could erode trust in the research process. Any ambiguity in the structure—such as unclear payment schedules or undefined conditions—can raise red flags. For example, the IRB may question a study that offers a “completion bonus” without specifying what constitutes completion or whether partial compensation is available for participants who withdraw early. Researchers should provide explicit details about the following:
- Payment schedules: Lump sum versus installments.
- Conditions for receiving incentives: Are there penalties for early withdrawal?
- Non-monetary incentives: Such as access to healthcare or educational materials.
Equitability Across Populations
Another key criterion is whether the incentives are equitable across participant groups. For example, offering higher compensation to one demographic group over another without justification may raise concerns about fairness and justice, violating principles outlined in the Belmont Report (NCPHS, 1979).
Consideration of Vulnerable Populations
Compensation strategies for vulnerable populations undergo heightened scrutiny to ensure additional protections are in place. As Fisher and Fried (2003) note, vulnerable groups may face unique challenges in assessing risks and benefits, making it crucial for incentives to be appropriate and not exploitative. For instance, IRBs for researchers often require researchers to justify the use of financial incentives in studies targeting economically disadvantaged populations, as monetary rewards may disproportionately influence these individuals.
Minimizing Perceived Coercion
The independent IRB examines whether the language used in recruitment materials and consent forms frames the incentive in a way that could be seen as coercive. For example, phrases like “Don’t miss out on $500!” might unduly pressure individuals to participate. Ethical guidelines call for neutral and factual language to present incentives. The human subject review board evaluation of incentives is grounded in a commitment to protecting participants’ autonomy, promoting fairness, and upholding ethical research practices. By understanding the criteria used by the IRB, researchers can design incentive structures that align with ethical principles while ensuring their studies remain appealing to potential participants.
Conclusion
Conducting ethical research isn’t just about meeting regulatory requirements—it’s about fostering trust, respect, and fairness at every step of the journey. When it comes to participant compensation, getting it right means balancing the need for incentives with the ethical principles of autonomy, justice, and beneficence. At BeyondBound IRB, we understand that researchers need a partner who provides expertise and care in handling the process while keeping things straightforward and stress-free.
We aim to ensure that your research moves forward with no roadblocks, just support. Through a comprehensive, bespoke approach, we help you design compensation strategies that meet ethical standards and resonate with participants. With efficient, stress-free service, you can focus on what matters most—conducting meaningful research—while we work with you to secure fast, confident approval from the IRB.
We also prioritize direct engagement with our clients to create a clear path toward ethical compliance. Whether it’s eliminating obstacles during the IRB submission process or helping you foster collaboration with participants and stakeholders, we are here to simplify the complex and guide you every step of the way.
We also believe in transparent pricing and customized solutions tailored to the unique needs of your study. With our comprehensive support and affiliated network, you can rest assured that you’re working with a team that is deeply invested in the success of your research.
Let us help you bring your study to life with a compensation plan that is fair, ethical, and effective. Reach out to BeyondBound IRB today and experience the difference of a trusted partner in your corner. Together, we can create research that not only meets the highest standards but also inspires confidence and respect among participants.
References
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701–2711. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.20.2701
Fisher, C. B., & Fried, A. L. (2003). Ethical issues and challenges in applied developmental psychology. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(03)00073-6
Grady, C. (2005). Payment of clinical research subjects. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 115(7), 1681–1687. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI25694
Largent, E. A., Grady, C., Miller, F. G., & Wertheimer, A. (2012). Misconceptions about coercion and undue influence: Reflections on the views of IRB members. Bioethics, 27(9), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01972.x
London School of Economics. (2020). Ethical Issues in Incentives and Reimbursement. Retrieved from https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/divisions/research-and-innovation/research/Assets/Documents/PDF/ethics-incentives-reimbursement-etc-v5.pdf
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (NCPHS). (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2012). Ethical and Practical Considerations of Paying Research Participants. Retrieved from https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research/resources/assets/docs/ethical_and_practical_considerations_of_paying_research_participants_508.pdf
Ripley, E., Macrina, F., Markowitz, M., & Gennings, C. (2010). Who’s doing the math? Are we really compensating research participants? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(3), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.57
SAGE Research Methods. (2019). Ethics and Consent in Research with Vulnerable Participants. Retrieved from https://researchmethodscommunity.sagepub.com/blog/ethics-and-consent-in-research-with-vulnerable-participants
Tri-Council Policy Statement. (2020). Fair Compensation for Research Participants. Retrieved from https://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Fair-compensation-Think-Piece-.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2019). Attachment A – Addressing Ethical Concerns, Payment to Research Participants. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp-committee/recommendations/attachment-a-september-30-2019/index.html
UK Research and Innovation Council. (2021). Research with potentially vulnerable people. Retrieved from https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/research-with-potentially-vulnerable-people/
University College Cork. (2019). Guidance for Researchers Conducting Research with Vulnerable People. Retrieved from https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/research/researchatucc/ethicswebpage/VulnerabilityGuidanceDocumentApril2019.pdf
University of Alberta. (2009). Guidelines on Compensation of Human Research Participants. Retrieved from https://www.ualberta.ca/en/research/media-library/reo/human-ethics-files/forms-files/guidelines-on-compensation-of-human-research-participants-_march_2009.pdf
University of California, Berkeley. (2022). Guidelines for Participant Compensation in Research Studies. Retrieved from https://cphs.berkeley.edu/compensation.pdf
University of California, Los Angeles. (2021). Participant Payment Policy. Retrieved from https://ora.research.ucla.edu/OHRPP/Documents/Policy/10/Subject_Payment.pdf
University of Oxford. (2020). Payments and Incentives in Research. Retrieved from https://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/files/bpg05paymentsandincentivesinresearchv10pdf