4.2 Article

Participant compensation in global health research: a case study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 524-532

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/inthealth/ihaa064

关键词

ethics dumping; global health; participant compensation; research ethics

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [203919/Z/16/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust [203919/Z/16/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Compensation for research participants can be provided for reasons including reimbursement of costs; compensation for time lost, discomfort or inconvenience; or expression of appreciation for participation. This compensation involves numerous ethical complexities, at times entailing competing risks. In the context of transnational research, often incorporating contexts of economic inequality, power differentials and post-colonialism, these issues extend into wider questions of ethical research conduct. Methods: We describe experiences of conducting a community-based study of air pollution in southern Malawi incorporating ethnographic, participatory and air quality monitoring elements. Decisions surrounding participant compensation evolved in response to changing circumstances in the field. Results: Attention to careful researcher-participant relationships and responsiveness to community perspectives allowed dynamic, contextualised decision-making around participant compensation. Despite widely cited risks, including but not restricted to undue influence of monetary compensation on participation, we learned that failure to adequately recognise and compensate participants has its own risks, notably the possibility of 'ethics dumping'. Conclusions: We recommend active engagement with research participants and communities with integration of contextual insights throughout, including participant compensation, as for all elements of research conduct. Equitable research relationships encompass four central values: fairness, care, honesty and respect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据