"You may have already won...": An examination of the use of lottery payments in research

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 12-16

  Brown, Joseph S ^a   Schonfeld, Toby L ^b   Gordon, Bruce C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MOTIVATION; PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING; PATIENT SELECTION; PEDIATRICS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROBABILITY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER;

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CLINICAL TRIALS; COMPREHENSION; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; GAMBLING; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; MOTIVATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PEDIATRICS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROBABILITY; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

EID: 32144438499     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Carlston DE. Listserve communication. (January, 2005). http:www.spsp.org.
2. z. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
3. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
4. Ackerman T. An ethical framework for the practice of paying research subjects. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1989;11(4):1-4;
5. Gordon BG, Brown J, Kratochvil C, et al. Paying research subjects. In: Amdur R, Bankert E. Institutional Review Board: Management and Function. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2002., p. 185-190.
6. Note that we say "fair" here and not "equal," as other factors may affect the actual amount of compensation (e.g., travel time and distance, etc.). Our argument contrasts pure procedural justice with perfect procedural justice. For a discussion of this distinction, please see ref. 3, Rawls 1991, p. 74-75.
7. See ref. 3, Rawls 1991.
8. We recognize that if the investigators in our two examples followed this procedure, the low level of compensation may have failed to attract sufficient participation in the study. While we are sympathetic to this problem, it is a separate consideration from the ethical justification of the lottery itself.
9. Sternberg RJ. Psychology. 4th ed. Stamford, CT: Thomson Wadsworth, 2001;
10. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 1973;5:207-232.
11. See ref. 8, Tversky and Kahneman 1973.
12. Slovic P, Fischoff, B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: Societal perception of risk. Advances in Consumer Research 1981;8(1):497-502;
13. Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Fischoff B. Modeling the societal impact of fatal accidents. Management Science 1984;30(4):464-475.
14. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211(4481):453-458;
15. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 1984;39(4):341-350.
16. As an additional note, one might recall that Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in this area, suggesting that economists, at least, consider these effects large enough to influence behavior in a significant manner.
17. Kalanter JS, Talley NJ. The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: A randomized study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1999;52:1117-1122;
18. Aadahl M, Jorgensen T. The effect of conducting a lottery on questionnaire response rates: A randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Epidemiology 2003;18(10):941-944;
19. Ward J, Boyle C, Long D, Ovadia C. Patient surveys in general practice: A randomised trial of an instant lottery ticket to increase return rate. Australian Family Physician 1996(Suppl I): S19-20;
20. Roberts Paula J, Roberts Chris, Sibbald Bonnie, Torgerson David J. The effect of a direct payment or a lottery on questionnaire response rates: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2004;54:71-72.
21. See ref. 4, Ackerman 1989;
22. McGee G. Subject to payment? JAMA 1997;178:199-200;
23. Macklin R. "Due" and "undue" inducements: On paying money to research subjects. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1981;3(5):1-6.;
24. Wartofsky M. On doing it for money. In: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Research Involving Prisoners: Report and Recommendations. Washington, DC: 1976.
25. See ref. 4, Gordon et al. 2002.
26. Note that we are not asserting that subjects are being paid $1,250 for 10 minutes work, but only that to the extent they perceive the situation that way, the amount could unduly influence subjects' choices to participate.
27. In this case, we use the word "costs" to include all expenditures, including money, time and effort, as well as all potential harms arising from participation in the research.
28. Schonfeld TL, Brown JS, Gordon B. Participant protection and the risk-benefit relationship. American Journal of Bioethics 2005; 5(5):22-24.