A cross-sectional survey on patient perception of subject payment for research
Abstract
Background: Research subjects may receive payment for their participation. Multiple models for payment have been proposed, however, the most ethical model is not completely clear.
Objective: The purpose of the present study is to evaluate and quantify the public’s perception and to identify demographic determinants influencing said perceptions.
Methods: Patients from a New York City medical clinic were queried using an adapted survey on medical research compensation consisting of 6 opinion-style questions pertaining to the payment of subjects enrolling in clinical trials and 9 demographic questions. Pearson’s chi-squared tests of independence with two-tailed alpha of 0.05 and correction for multiple testing were performed to determine statistical significance.
Results: 440 respondents were recruited for participation, with broad distribution across age, race, and socioeconomic levels. For research payment, surveyed respondents preferred the market model (n = 265, 62%) compared to the reimbursement model (n = 72, 16.8%) or wage payment model (n = 64, 15%) and no payment (n = 27, 6.3%). Patients under the age of 60 were more likely to choose the market model (p = .01) compared to those over 60 selecting the reimbursement model (p = .001). 88.7% (n = 377) of respondents indicated they did not perceive clinical trial payment to be a bribe, with non-white patients being more likely to identify payment as a bribe (p = .025). 73.2% of respondents (n = 344) believed that poorer individuals were more likely to enroll. Patients without high school education and patients 60 years of age or older were more likely to believe that payment (p = .006 and p < .001, respectively) would have no influence on enrollment than those with high school education.
Conclusions: Differences in mind-set towards clinical trials demonstrate older patients and individuals without a high school education may have differing opinions with regards to financial incentives in clinical trials. Sensitivity towards these attitudes may require alternative models of payment for future clinical trials.
Objective: The purpose of the present study is to evaluate and quantify the public’s perception and to identify demographic determinants influencing said perceptions.
Methods: Patients from a New York City medical clinic were queried using an adapted survey on medical research compensation consisting of 6 opinion-style questions pertaining to the payment of subjects enrolling in clinical trials and 9 demographic questions. Pearson’s chi-squared tests of independence with two-tailed alpha of 0.05 and correction for multiple testing were performed to determine statistical significance.
Results: 440 respondents were recruited for participation, with broad distribution across age, race, and socioeconomic levels. For research payment, surveyed respondents preferred the market model (n = 265, 62%) compared to the reimbursement model (n = 72, 16.8%) or wage payment model (n = 64, 15%) and no payment (n = 27, 6.3%). Patients under the age of 60 were more likely to choose the market model (p = .01) compared to those over 60 selecting the reimbursement model (p = .001). 88.7% (n = 377) of respondents indicated they did not perceive clinical trial payment to be a bribe, with non-white patients being more likely to identify payment as a bribe (p = .025). 73.2% of respondents (n = 344) believed that poorer individuals were more likely to enroll. Patients without high school education and patients 60 years of age or older were more likely to believe that payment (p = .006 and p < .001, respectively) would have no influence on enrollment than those with high school education.
Conclusions: Differences in mind-set towards clinical trials demonstrate older patients and individuals without a high school education may have differing opinions with regards to financial incentives in clinical trials. Sensitivity towards these attitudes may require alternative models of payment for future clinical trials.
Full Text:
PDFDOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/jha.v9n2p14
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Journal of Hospital Administration
ISSN 1927-6990(Print) ISSN 1927-7008(Online)
Copyright © Sciedu Press
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'Sciedupress.com' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.