For love or money? An exploratory study of why injecting drug users participate in research

Peer-based Retention Of people who Use Drugs in Rural Research (PROUD-R2): a multisite, randomised, 12-month trial to compare efficacy of standard versus peer-based approaches to retain rural people who use drugs in research

INTRODUCTION

Rural communities bear a disproportionate share of the opioid and methamphetamine use disorder epidemics. Yet, rural people who use drugs (PWUD) are rarely included in trials testing new drug use prevention and treatment strategies. Numerous barriers impede rural PWUD trial engagement and advancing research methods to better retain rural PWUD in clinical trials is needed. This paper describes the Peer-based Retention Of people who Use Drugs in Rural Research (PROUD-R2) study protocol to test the effectiveness of a peer-driven intervention to improve study retention among rural PWUD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PROUD-R2 study is being implemented in 21 rural counties in three states (Kentucky, Ohio and Oregon). People who are 18 years or older, reside in the study area and either used opioids or injected any drug to get high in the past 30 days are eligible for study inclusion. Participants are allocated in a 1:1 ratio to two arms, stratified by site to assure balance at each geographical location. The trial compares the effectiveness of two retention strategies. Participants randomised to the control arm provide detailed contact information and receive standard retention outreach by study staff (ie, contacts for locator information updates, appointment reminders). Participants randomised to the intervention arm are asked to recruit a 'study buddy' in addition to receiving standard retention outreach. Study buddies are invited to participate in a video training and instructed to remind their intervention participant of follow-up appointments and encourage retention. Assessments are completed by intervention, control and study buddy participants at 6 and 12 months after enrolment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by a central Institutional Review Board (University of Utah). Results of the study will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and in meetings with community stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03885024.

A cross-sectional survey of potential factors, motivations, and barriers influencing research participation and retention among people who use drugs in the rural USA

BACKGROUND

Despite high morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs (PWUD) in rural America, most research is conducted within urban areas. Our objective was to describe influencing factors, motivations, and barriers to research participation and retention among rural PWUD.

METHODS

We recruited 255 eligible participants from community outreach and community-based, epidemiologic research cohorts from April to July 2019 to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Eligible participants reported opioid or injection drug use to get high within 30 days and resided in high-needs rural counties in Oregon, Kentucky, and Ohio. We aggregated response rankings to identify salient influences, motivations, and barriers. We estimated prevalence ratios to assess for gender, preferred drug use, and geographic differences using log-binomial models.

RESULTS

Most participants were male (55%) and preferred methamphetamine (36%) over heroin (35%). Participants reported confidentiality, amount of financial compensation, and time required as primary influential factors for research participation. Primary motivations for participation include financial compensation, free HIV/HCV testing, and contribution to research. Changed or false participant contact information and transportation are principal barriers to retention. Respondents who prefer methamphetamines over heroin reported being influenced by the purpose and use of their information (PR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.26). Females and Oregonians (versus Appalachians) reported knowing and wanting to help the research team as participation motivation (PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.26 and PR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Beyond financial compensation, researchers should emphasize confidentiality, offer testing and linkage with care, use several contact methods, aid transportation, and accommodate demographic differences to improve research participation and retention among rural PWUD.

Basic care as exceptional care: addiction stigma and consumer accounts of quality healthcare in Australia

The discrimination faced by people understood to have alcohol or other drug addictions has been the subject of extensive research, with many studies documenting experiences of stigma within healthcare services. Building on this literature, we examine the role of stigma in shaping the healthcare expectations of people seen as affected by alcohol and other drug addictions. Our analysis draws on recent theorisations of stigma as a process of social production to analyse in-depth, qualitative interviews with 20 people who had recently attended an inpatient withdrawal management service. Participants describe as exceptional forms of care that are often taken for granted by other members of the community. We argue that routinised experiences of discrimination work to constitute basic care as exceptional. This finding is significant for two reasons: (1) people who consume alcohol and other drugs often have complex healthcare needs and already encounter obstacles to accessing the care they need, and (2) by positioning people who consume drugs outside the purview of healthcare, this dynamic obstructs their fundamental right to care. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of these findings for those who are often positioned as not entitled to high quality healthcare.

'This could be my last chance': Therapeutic optimism in a randomised controlled trial for substance use disorders

In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 'therapeutic optimism' describes a participant's belief they will benefit from the study treatment, despite the express goal of RCTs to test unknown aspects of interventions. Harbouring such expectations may interfere with RCT participation experiences, particularly among marginalised populations, such as people with substance use disorders (PSUD) who may experience social and structural barriers to participation that also increase their vulnerability to therapeutic optimism. However, little research explores therapeutic optimism within substance use trials. Thus, we conducted a nested qualitative study within an RCT testing a treatment for alcohol and opioid use disorders in HIV clinics. Using interviews with 22 participants in Vancouver, Canada, analysis revealed themes relevant to therapeutic optimism, that were specifically linked to intrinsic (e.g. health-related) or extrinsic motivations (e.g. stipend). First, compared to extrinsically motivated participants, intrinsically motivated participants held high expectations for the trial and attributed greater agency to the study medication. Second, intrinsically motivated participants expressing therapeutic optimism anticipated marked changes in their lives from the study/medication. Finally, some participants predicted the treatment would solve substance-related issues in their communities. These findings highlight the interplay between therapeutic optimism and complex interpretations of RCT objectives among PSUD.

Offering Payment in Clinical Research: Enrolling Individuals With or at Risk for Opioid Use Disorder

Offering payment is an important means of facilitating research participation. Yet, offers of payment raise ethical challenges that may be heightened when prospective participants suffer from or are at risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). We surveyed principal investigators (PIs) conducting research in this population to characterize the relative importance they assign to various ethical and practical factors when designing offers of payment and also analyzed descriptions of payment in both their study advertisements and consent forms. Overall, we found that, despite literature suggesting heightened ethical concerns for this population, practical factors related to payment were more influential for PIs than either ethical factors or factors unique to individuals with or at risk for OUD. Our findings can help inform the development of ethical, effective recruitment and retention strategies for research in this population.

Adult ADHD Is Associated With Gambling Severity and Psychiatric Comorbidity Among Treatment-Seeking Problem Gamblers

Objective: The aim of this study is as follows: (a) exploring retrospective childhood and adult ADHD symptomatology in treatment-seeking gamblers, (b) providing detailed characteristics of the association between pathological gambling (PG) and ADHD, and (c) identifying risk factors for a history of ADHD. Method: Eighty problem gamblers (20% female) were examined using a standardized interview (PG: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [4th ed.; DSM-IV] criteria, Gambling Attitudes and Beliefs Survey; ADHD: Wender Utah Rating Scale-deutsche Kurzform, Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale; comorbidities: Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview). Results: Forty-three percentage of patients screened positive for childhood ADHD, and in 11%, ADHD persisted in adulthood. Patients with adult ADHD had more severe gambling problems (p = .009, d = 1.03) and a higher number of psychiatric comorbidities (p < .001, d = 1.62) compared with those without ADHD. Substance abuse/dependence constituted a predictor for having a history of ADHD (odds ratio [OR] = 4.07, p = .025). Conclusion: ADHD-PG comorbidity is linked to factors that worsen the prognosis. Thus, screening for ADHD and verifying persistence in adulthood should be an integral component in the interdisciplinary treatment of problem/pathological gamblers.

Engaging Stakeholders to Develop a Patient-centered Research Agenda: Lessons Learned From the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet)

Background:

Patient-centered research requires a focus on the needs and priorities of patients. Because patient engagement can result in the discovery of important topics not currently prioritized by research programs, topic generation, and prioritization activities conducted with patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders are essential. To develop patient-centered research agendas for obesity and diabetes, the Research Action for Health Network conducted topic generation and prioritization activities with multistakeholder research advisory groups.

Objectives:

The purpose of this case study was to demonstrate how methods for engaging patients in topic generation and prioritization can be implemented in practice for the development of a patient-centered research agenda.

Research Design:

Four multistakeholder groups comprising patients, clinicians, and researchers met 4–5 times between November 2014 and July 2015 to generate and prioritize topics for obesity and diabetes research. Topics were prioritized using an iterative engagement process, in which themes were identified and resulting topics were refined and ranked over multiple meetings.

Participants:

Sixty-four patients, clinicians, and researchers participated in 2 obesity and 2 diabetes advisory groups. The majority of participants (64.0%) were patients, followed by clinicians (23.4%), researchers (9.4%), and parents of children with diabetes (3.1%).

Results:

Ten and 12 priority topics were identified for obesity and diabetes, respectively. The resulting research agendas were disseminated to patients, researchers, and clinicians.

Conclusions:

Patient engagement has the potential to enrich our understanding of patient priorities for research. The results from this process suggest that convening in-person multistakeholder groups can be an effective way to generate research topics that reflect patients’ priorities. Engagement strategies should be focused not only on the development of patient-centered research topics but also on the implementation of these topics into research studies.

Ethical Issues in Research Involving Participants With Opioid Use Disorder

In the current epidemic of opioid use disorders, there is both a scientific and ethical imperative to develop effective medical and behavioral treatments for opioid addiction. Research in subject populations with active and ongoing drug addictions bring unique ethical considerations and challenges. Sponsors, researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) members should be familiar with these unique ethical and medical issues as they design, review, and conduct research planned for this population. Issues include those of informed consent and decision-making capacity of research participants, compensation for participation and concerns about undue inducement, forces that threaten the voluntary nature of research participation including the scarcity of available drug treatment programs, and ensuring that participants are aware of and understand risks that may continue after research participation such as increased risk of overdose after research-mandated drug abstinence. This manuscript discusses the current thinking on these issues.

Doing Research with Vulnerable Populations: The Case of Intravenous Drug Users

This review article considers ethical concerns when doing research on potentially vulnerable people who inject drugs (PWID) in a Canadian context. The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans broadly addresses many of the traditional ethical principles of research on vulnerable persons, but does so at the cost of clarity and precision. Vulnerability is contextual rather than absolute. When doing research with vulnerable persons, informed consent should be obtained from an independent person, and comprehension should be checked using questioning. Participants can be vulnerable due to many factors, including addiction, chronic disease, socioeconomic and racial status, and lack of education. The ability of PWID to give informed consent can be compromised by undue influence or intoxication, but existing research shows that neither the mode nor the magnitude of compensation has a significant effect on new rates of drug use. Compensation can also help dispel the therapeutic misconception. Intoxication rather than undue influence is the main concern when obtaining informed consent from PWID. The stigmatization of PWID as incapable of consent should be avoided. Paternalistic exclusion from research can harm PWID and exacerbate their vulnerability by reducing our knowledge of and ability to specifically treat them. As such, we must collect better data about the effects of research ethics policies. Studies to this effect should focus on experiences, perspectives and needs of potentially vulnerable research participants. Research ethics boards in Canada should adopt an evidence-based approach when applying discretionary power to proposals for clinical research.

Personal Control Over Decisions to Participate in Research by Persons With Histories of Both Substance Use Disorders and Criminal Justice Supervision

Individuals must feel free to exert personal control over decisions regarding research participation. We present an examination of participants' perceived personal control over, as well as reported pressures and threats from others, influencing their decision to join a study assessing the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone in preventing opioid dependence relapse. Most participants endorsed a strong sense of control over the decision; few reported pressures or threats. Although few in number, participants' brief narrative descriptions of the pressures and threats are illuminating and provide context for their perceptions of personal control. Based on this work, we propose a useful set of tools to help ascertain participants' sense of personal control in joining research.

'I Got it off my Chest': An Examination of how Research Participation Improved the Mental Health of Women Engaging in Transactional Sex

Ecologic momentary assessment (EMA) is a form of close-ended diary writing. While it has been shown that participating in a study that incorporates EMA improves mental health of participants, no study to date has examined the pathways through which benefits may occur. For 4-weeks, twice-daily EMAs and weekly interviews captured mood, daily activities and HIV risk behavior of 25 women who engage in transactional sex. Qualitative analysis of exit interviews was performed to examine how participation impacted women's mental health. The majority of participants felt that EMAs heightened awareness of emotions and behavior. Most reported experiencing catharsis from the interviews; specifically, from having a non-judgmental, trusting listener. Participants felt responsible for completing tasks, a sense of accomplishment for completing the study, and altruism. This study demonstrates there are direct benefits associated with participation in an EMA and interview study.

Rethinking vulnerable groups in clinical research

Vulnerable groups are often excluded from clinical research on the basis of scientific, ethical and practical reasons. Although intended to protect vulnerable people and maintain study integrity, exclusion of vulnerable groups from research through use of standard exclusion criteria may not always be necessary and may result in findings that are not generalisable. Achieving a balance between the competing needs to protect vulnerable people and to make progress in our understanding of disorders and their management through research requires a reconsideration of exclusion criteria and consent processes to ensure vulnerable people are appropriately represented in clinical research. Reasons for development of broad exclusion criteria include both concrete barriers and intangible discouraging factors. This paper examines this situation and its consequences, perceived and real barriers to inclusion of vulnerable people in research, and suggests methods for overcoming these barriers and applying thoughtful exclusion criteria.

Potential benefits of using ecological momentary assessment to study high-risk polydrug use

BACKGROUND

While studies have documented both the feasibility and acceptability of using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to study drug use, there is little empirical research assessing participants' perceptions of utilizing this technology-driven approach.

METHODS

Participants were English-speaking persons ≥18 years old who reported injection drug use and sequential (e.g., alcohol followed by opioid use) or simultaneous (i.e., injecting heroin and cocaine in one shot) polydrug use within 30 days recruited in San Diego, CA and Philadelphia, PA. Participants (N=36) completed two cell phone-based EMA simulations assessing mood, drug use, HIV risk behaviors, and daily activities, followed by semi-structured interviews that probed for potential benefits of participation over time. Qualitative analysis involved an iterative process of reviewing texts from the interviews to create a coding framework, which was then applied to all transcripts to identify themes.

RESULTS

Findings suggest participants may derive indirect benefits from participation in EMA studies including: improved self-worth from helping others; experiencing increased social support through utilization of the study-provided mobile device for non-research purposes; and most importantly, increased self-reflection, which could lead to therapeutic and intervention-like effects such as decreased substance use or reduced HIV risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants identified a variety of potential benefits from participating in a study that utilizes EMA. This research suggests that benefits are highly salient for individuals involved in studies of polydrug use.

Diffracting addicting binaries: An analysis of personal accounts of alcohol and other drug ‘addiction’

Associated with social and individual harm, loss of control and destructive behaviour, addiction is widely considered to be a major social problem. Most models of addiction, including the influential disease model, rely on the volition/compulsion binary, conceptualising addiction as a disorder of compulsion. In order to interrogate this prevailing view, this article draws on qualitative data from interviews with people who describe themselves as having an alcohol or other drug ‘addiction’, ‘dependence’ or ‘habit’. Applying the concept of ‘diffraction’ elaborated by science studies scholar Karen Barad, we examine the process of ‘addicting’, or the various ways in which addiction is constituted, in accounts of daily life with regular alcohol and other drug use. Our analysis suggests not only that personal accounts of addiction exceed the absolute opposition of volition/compulsion but also that the polarising assumptions of existing addicting discourses produce many of the negative effects typically attributed to the ‘disease of addiction’.

"We're giving you something so we get something in return": Perspectives on research participation and compensation among people living with HIV who use drugs

BACKGROUND

Compensation for participating in research has been a fundamental element of the research apparatus despite concerns about its impact on incentivising participation. Researchers and research ethics boards acknowledge that compensation may prompt structurally vulnerable populations, such as people who use drugs (PWUD), to engage in research primarily out of financial need. Thus, institutional restrictions around compensation have been implemented. This study explores the ethical implications of compensation practices aimed at 'protecting' structurally vulnerable people living with HIV (PLHIV) who use drugs within the context of individuals' lived realities.

METHODS

We draw on five focus groups conducted in 2011 with 25 PLHIV who use drugs and access a community-based HIV care facility in Vancouver, Canada. This analysis focused on participants' perceptions of research compensation, which became the central point of discussion in each group.

RESULTS

Participants viewed research as a transactional process through which they could challenge the underpinnings of bioethics and bargain for compensation. Research compensation was thus critical to attracting participants and positioned as a 'legitimate' form of income. Participants' medicalised identities, specifically living with HIV, were fundamental to justifying compensation. The type of compensation (e.g. gift card, cash) also significantly impacted whether participants were fully compensated and, at times, served to exacerbate their structural vulnerability.

CONCLUSION

Research compensation is critical in shaping structurally vulnerable populations' participation and experiences with research and can further marginalize individuals. Practices surrounding research compensation, particularly for drug-using and HIV-positive populations, need to be evaluated to ensure participants are equitably compensated for the expertise they provide.

The Ethics of Paying Drug Users Who Participate in Research: A Review and Practical Recommendations

The payment of research participants raises ethical and empirical questions that have special importance in addictions research involving drug-dependent participants. Despite a now large literature on human subjects payment, what is still needed is practical guidance for investigators and ethics committees. This paper reviews the literature on: Current payment practices and guidelines; defining features of undue and due incentives and fair reimbursement; and the significance of risks and harms that may arise from paying drug using participants. We conclude that research payments are ethically acceptable in most circumstances of addictions research, but should be closely scrutinized in situations where these may exacerbate existing harms or create additional risks for participants and investigators. General principles, key questions and procedural options are highlighted for an applied approach to ethical research payments. Future research directions are identified.

French academic's views on financial compensation of participants

BACKGROUND

Whether and how participants in biomedical research should receive financial compensation is debated. We wished to explore how this issue was perceived by French professionals, focusing on different conditions of research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed referent responders of Clinical Investigation Centres, Research Ethics Committees and hospital administrative departments for clinical research, via referent responders who completed an online questionnaire on behalf of their respective teams. Financial compensation was addressed in terms of general perception, justifications, interpretation of French law, concrete clinical situations and compensation of incurred expenses. Descriptive analyses and correlations were carried out based on scalar responses.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was answered by 54/116 (45·6%) centres. The ethical aspects of compensation were viewed differently by Clinical Investigation Centres and Research Ethics Committees, whereas the practical aspects were viewed similarly. Agreement to compensation for patients was lower than for healthy volunteers (74·1 vs. 98·2%). The most frequently cited justifications for compensation apart from the inconveniences of research were the potential risk and the absence of medical benefit. Most of the proposed expenses incurred were to be compensated, but agreement to reimbursement of petrol bills or childcare expense was lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some of the responses align with previous surveys in other countries, this information may help French professionals to harmonise their practices. We also addressed practical issues which could be studied in other European countries, for professionals and participants. Finally, the reluctance to compensate patients requires further study, taking into account welfare environment and consequences for recruitment.

Reasons for participation and non-participation in a randomized controlled trial: postal questionnaire surveys of women eligible for TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears)

Background Better understanding of motivators for, and barriers to, participation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in different study populations and settings has the potential to improve participation of historically under-represented groups (eg, women) in future trials.

Purpose To investigate reasons why women agreed, or declined, to participate in a RCT.

Methods In two postal questionnaire-based studies, we investigated women's reasons for participation or non-participation in TOMBOLA, a RCT comparing management policies for low-grade cervical abnormalities. Four-hundred and ninety-two TOMBOLA participants (response rate 56%) completed questionnaires on reasons for participation. One-hundred and thiry-seven women (38%) who declined TOMBOLA participation completed questionnaires on reasons for this.

Results Eighty percent of women reported that one of their reasons for attending their TOMBOLA recruitment appointment was worries about their smear result. Ninety-four percent participated in the RCT because it was a worthwhile contribution to the cervical screening programme and other women; for 70% this was the most important reason. These proportions did not vary by socio-demographic factors. Thirty-two percent thought participation would result in better care. The most common reason for non-participation was preference for follow-up from the woman's GP. Logistical issues (eg, inconvenient appointments, travel time, arranging time off work or child-care) were commonly cited. Fourteen percent were too frightened to participate; this was unrelated to the grade of the recruitment smear. Limitations Response rates were not high, but there was little evidence of response bias. Structured questionnaires were used.

Conclusions Future research should address how best to deliver information to ensure different social groups appreciate potential benefits of RCT participation and provide reassurance regarding fears about participation. Simple strategies (eg, appealing to the altruism of potential participants or offering flexible recruitment clinic locations and times) might enhance RCT recruitment rates. This in turn would ensure best use of research resources thus bringing the greatest benefits to participants and the population.

Could providing financial incentives to research participants be ultimately self-defeating?

Controversy over providing financial incentives to research participants has a long history and remains an issue of contention in both current discussions about research ethics and for institutional review bodies/human research ethics committees which are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether such incentives fall within ethical guidelines. The arguments both for and against financial incentives have been well aired in the literature. A point of agreement for many is that inducement in the form of financial incentive is permissible when the risk of harm to the individual is negligible in terms of degree and probability of occurrence. In the absence of harm to the individual, encouraging more people to participate in research would appear to be a good thing in so far as it will lead to statistically more robust research outcomes, which can then be translated into better healthcare and other practice. Whilst, on the face of it, this position seems highly defensible, I will explore the possibility that it is counterproductive – that is, providing individuals with financial incentives to become research participants may have the unintended outcome of reducing participation rates in some areas of research. In exploring this idea I will draw on empirical findings from the literature on crowding-out – the hypothesis that providing monetary incentives to people can backfire by overall reducing intrinsic motivation, in this instance intrinsic motivation to behave altruistically or undertake civic duties.

The ethics of community-based research with people who use drugs: results of a scoping review

Background

Drug user networks and community-based organizations advocate for greater, meaningful involvement of people with lived experience of drug use in research, programs and services, and policy initiatives. Community-based approaches to research provide an opportunity to engage people who use drugs in all stages of the research process. Conducting community-based participatory research (CBPR) with people who use drugs has its own ethical challenges that are not necessarily acknowledged or supported by institutional ethics review boards. We conducted a scoping review to identify ethical issues in CBPR with people who use drugs that were documented in peer-reviewed and grey literature.

Methods

The search strategy focused on three areas; community-based research, ethical issues, and drug use. Searches of five academic databases were conducted in addition to a grey literature search, hand-searching, and consultation with organizational partners and key stakeholders. Peer reviewed literature and community reports published in English between 1985 and 2013 were included, with initial screening conducted by two reviewers.

Results

The search strategy produced a total of 874 references. Twenty-five references met the inclusion criteria and were included in our thematic analysis. Five areas were identified as important to the ethics of CBPR with people who use drugs: 1) participant compensation, 2) drug user perspectives on CBPR, 3) peer recruitment and representation in CBPR, 4) capacity building, and 5) participation and inclusion in CBPR.

Conclusions

We critically discuss implications of the emerging research in this field and provide suggestions for future research and practice.

Al-Anon newcomers: benefits of continuing attendance for six months

BACKGROUND

Al-Anon Family Groups, a 12-step mutual-help program for people concerned about another person's drinking, is the most widely used form of help by Concerned Others.

OBJECTIVES

This longitudinal study examined newcomers' outcomes of attending Al-Anon. Aims were to better understand early gains from Al-Anon to inform efforts in the professional community to facilitate concerned others' attendance of and engagement in Al-Anon.

METHODS

We compared two groups of Al-Anon newcomers who completed surveys at baseline and 6 months later: those who discontinued attendance by the 6-month follow-up (N = 133), and those who were still attending Al-Anon meetings (N = 97); baseline characteristics were controlled in these comparisons.

RESULTS

Newcomers who sustained participation in Al-Anon over the first 6 months of attendance were more likely than those who discontinued participation during the same period to report gains in a variety of domains, such as learning how to handle problems due to the drinker, and increased well-being and functioning, including reduced verbal or physical abuse victimization. Newcomers to Al-Anon reported more personal gains than drinker-related gains. The most frequent drinker gain was a better relationship with the Concerned Other; attendees were more likely to report this, as well as daily, in-person contact with the drinker.

CONCLUSION

Al-Anon participation may facilitate ongoing interaction between Concerned Others and drinkers, and help Concerned Others function and feel better. Thus, short-term participation may be beneficial. Health-care professionals should consider providing referrals to Al-Anon and monitoring early attendance.

Understanding motivations to participate in an observational research study: Why do patients enroll?

By understanding common motivations for participating in observational research studies, clinicians may better understand the perceived benefits of research participation from their clients' perspective. We enrolled 164 cardiac patients in a study about the effects of gratitude and optimism. Two weeks post-enrollment, participants completed a four-item questionnaire regarding motivations for study enrollment. Altruistic motivation ranked highest, while intellectual, health-related, and financial motivations rated lower. Four subgroups of participants emerged, each with distinct characteristics and different priorities for participating. These findings may help front-line clinicians to understand which motivations for participation apply to their clients who enroll in non-treatment-based research projects.

"We're checking them out": Indigenous and non-Indigenous research participants' accounts of deciding to be involved in research

BACKGROUND

It is important for researchers to understand the motivations and decision-making processes of participants who take part in their research. This enables robust informed consent and promotes research that meets the needs and expectations of the community. It is particularly vital when working with Indigenous communities, where there is a history of exploitative research practices. In this paper, we examine the accounts of Australian Indigenous and non-Indigenous research participants in terms of how and why they agree to take part in research.

METHODS

A qualitative research approach was employed to undertake individual interviews with 36 research participants in Victoria, Australia. Eight participants identified as Indigenous and 28 were non-Indigenous. Thematic analysis was used to interpret the data.

RESULTS

There were stark differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous research participants in terms of why and how they decided to participate in research. For Indigenous participants, taking part in research was primarily to benefit their communities rather than for personal interests. Indigenous participants often started from a position of caution, and showed a considered and deliberate process of decision making. In weighing up their decision to participate, some Indigenous participants clearly articulated what was valued in conducting research with Indigenous communities, for example, honesty, reciprocity, and respect; these values were explicitly used to assist their decision whether or not to participate. This was in contrast to non-Indigenous participants who took researchers' claims on face value, and for whom deciding to participate in research was relatively straightforward. The motivations to participate of non-Indigenous participants were due to personal interests, a desire to help others, or trust in the medical practitioner who recruited them for the research project.

CONCLUSION

Understanding research participants' motivations about taking part in research is important. This is particularly relevant for Indigenous communities where there is a reported history of research abuse leading to mistrust. This understanding can lead to research practice that is more respectful and responsive to the needs of Indigenous communities and abides by the values of Indigenous communities. Moreover it can lead to more ethical and respectful research practice for all.

Key Stakeholders' Perceptions of Motivators for Research Participation Among Individuals Who Are Incarcerated

Understanding motivations of research participants is crucial for developing ethical research protocols, especially for research with vulnerable populations. Through interviews with 92 institutional review board members, prison administrators, research ethicists, and researchers, we explored key stakeholders' perceptions of what motivates incarcerated individuals to participate in research. Primary motivators identified were a desire to contribute to society, gaining knowledge and health care, acquiring incentives, and obtaining social support. The potential for undue influence or coercion were also identified as motivators. These results highlight the need for careful analysis of what motivates incarcerated individuals to participate in research as part of developing or reviewing ethically permissible and responsible research protocols. Future research should expand this line of inquiry to directly include perspectives of incarcerated individuals.

A qualitative analysis of peer recruitment pressures in respondent driven sampling: Are risks above the ethical limit?

BACKGROUND

This paper examines peer recruitment dynamics through respondent driven sampling (RDS) with a sample of injection drug users in Hartford, CT to understand the strategies participants use to recruit peers into a study and the extent to which these strategies may introduce risks above the ethical limit despite safeguards in RDS.

METHODS

Out of 526 injection drug users who participated in a mixed-method RDS methodology evaluation study, a nested sample of 61 participants completed an in-depth semi-structured interview at a 2-month follow-up to explore their experiences with the recruitment process.

RESULTS

Findings revealed that participants used a variety of strategies to recruit peers, ranging from one-time interactions to more persistent strategies to encourage participation (e.g., selecting peers that can easily be found and contacted later, following up with peers to remind them of their appointment, accompanying peers to the study site, etc.). Some participants described the more persistent strategies as helpful, while some others experienced these strategies as minor peer pressure, creating a feeling of obligation to participate. Narratives revealed that overall, the probability of experiencing study-related risks remains relatively low for most participants; however, a disconcerting finding was that higher study-related risks (e.g., relationship conflict, loss of relationship, physical fights, violence) were seen for recruits who participated but switched coupons or for recruits who decided not to participate in the study and did not return the coupon to the recruiter.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that peer recruitment practices in RDS generally pose minimal risk, but that peer recruitment may occasionally exceed the ethical limit, and that enhanced safeguards for studies using peer recruitment methods are recommended. Suggestions for possible enhancements are described.

Factors associated with willingness to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment clinical trial among people who use drugs

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although new medications are needed to address the harms of drug addiction, rates of willingness to participate in addiction treatment trials among people who use drugs (PWUD), have not been well characterized.

METHODS

One thousand twenty PWUD enrolled in two community-recruited cohorts in Vancouver, Canada, were asked whether they would be willing to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment trial. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with a willingness to participate.

RESULTS

Among the 1,020 PWUD surveyed between June 1, 2013 and November 30, 2013, 58.3% indicated a willingness to participate. In multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with a willingness to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment trial included: daily heroin injection (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 1.75; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.13 - 2.72); daily crack smoking (AOR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.23 - 2.66); sex work involvement (AOR = 2.22; 95% CI: 1.21 - 4.06); HIV seropositivity (AOR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.15 - 1.94); and methadone maintenance therapy participation (AOR = 1.77; 95% CI: 1.37-2.30).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

High rates of willingness to participate in a pharmacologic addiction treatment trial were observed in this setting. Importantly, high-risk drug and sexual activities were positively associated with a willingness to participate, which may suggest a desire for new treatment interventions among PWUD engaged in high-risk behavior.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

These results highlight the viability of studies seeking to enroll representative samples of PWUD engaged in high-risk drug use.

Contingency management for cocaine treatment: cash vs. vouchers

The efficacy of contingency management (CM) for treating drug abuse is well supported. The most widely used form of CM is voucher-based reinforcement therapy (VBRT), where clients receive an escalating schedule of vouchers that can be redeemed for goods and services for meeting treatment goals. Though generally rejected due to concerns about potential harms to drug using participants, research suggests that cash may be a more effective reinforcer. This three-group randomized trial compared the efficacy of cash-based reinforcement therapy (CBRT) to VBRT and a non-CM condition on cocaine abstinence and treatment attendance; and examined whether CBRT resulted in greater levels of harm than VBRT. Findings indicated that the CBRT was as effective as VBRT when compared to the non-CM condition and that it did not increase rates of drug use, cravings, or high-risk behaviors. Future research should examine potential cost savings associated with a cash-based CM approach as this could have important implications for the wider adoption of the CM model.

Successful recruitment to a study of first-episode psychosis by clinicians: a qualitative account of outcomes and influences on process

Abstract Background: Strategies proposed to promote recruitment of representative samples to trials and mental health research have focused on researchers external to clinical services. How clinicians approach recruitment as researchers and particularities of recruiting people with first episode of psychosis warrant investigation.

AIMS

To describe recruitment, by clinicians, of people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) and factors influencing process and enrolment.

METHODS

Observational study nested within longitudinal examination of trauma and outcomes for patients experiencing first psychotic episode. Data collected during 20 scheduled meetings of clinicians recruiting from services in Australia.

RESULTS

Timely recruitment of 60 young people demonstrates that clinicians can successfully engage patients in research. Success depends on satisfaction of organisational preconditions and clinician motivation grounded in considering the study worthwhile. Pre-selection of participants was informed by judgments about health, insight and quality of the therapeutic alliance. Patients' decisions were influenced by family support, acceptance of diagnosis and altruism. Honoraria had variable effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are well placed to recruit when appropriately supported, and people with FEP are willing to engage in research that fits their personal circumstances. Research should examine the meaning of participation in such studies and ways participation could support recovery.

Is there a problem with the status quo? Debating the need for standalone ethical guidelines for research with people who use alcohol and other drugs

In 2011, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) initiated an inquiry to determine whether there is a need for expanded ethical guidance in the form of a discrete guidance document for alcohol and other drug (AOD) research. An issues paper was developed to frame the inquiry. AOD researchers, Human Research Ethics Committees and others were invited to discuss whether there are distinctive ethical issues facing researchers and Human Research Ethics Committees in the AOD setting. Based on the public submissions, the NHMRC recommended that no AOD research-specific guidance is required. The inquiry and the NHMRC decision were not widely publicized, and we feel there is a need for further discussion. In order to do so, we have analysed the public inquiry submissions and described the central themes. Few submissions in the inquiry explicitly agreed AOD research warrants a specific guidance framework. Most were concerned that the NHMRC issues paper unfairly targeted people who use drugs as complex research participants. The inquiry highlights tensions around research governance and ethics review boards dealing with illicit and stigmatised behaviours. While we agree that a specific guidance framework for AOD research is not needed and could potentially be harmful and restrictive, we are concerned that the wholesale rejection of a guidance framework has closed the door to much needed debate. There remains, we argue, a need for alternative strategies and tools to support ethical research, inform and streamline institutional ethics approval, and engage and protect participants.

A qualitative study of recruitment barriers, motivators, and community-based strategies for increasing clinical trials participation among rural and urban populations

PURPOSE

Participation in clinical trials (CTs) is low among rural communities. Investigators report difficulty recruiting rural individuals for CTs. The study purpose was to identify recruitment barriers, motivators, and strategies to help increase access to and participation in CTs in rural and urban communities.

APPROACH

Qualitative focus groups/interviews.

SETTING

Rural and urban counties in one southeastern state.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred twelve African-American and white men and women ages 21+.

METHOD

Nineteen focus groups and nine interviews were conducted. Audio files were transcribed and organized into NVivo10. Recurring themes were examined by geographic location.

RESULTS

Although similar barriers, motivators, and strategies were reported by urban and rural groups, perceptions regarding their importance varied. Recruitment barriers mentioned in both rural and urban groups included fear, side effects, limited understanding, limited time, and mistrust. Rural groups were more mindful of time commitment involved. Both rural and urban participants reported financial incentives as the top motivator to CT participation, followed by personal illness (urban groups) and benefits to family (rural groups). Recruitment strategies suggested by rural participants involved working with schools/churches and using word of mouth, whereas partnering with schools, word of mouth, and media were recommended most by urban groups.

CONCLUSION

Perceived recruitment barriers, motivators, and strategies did not differ considerably between rural and urban groups. Major barriers identified by participants should be addressed in future CT recruitment and education efforts. Findings can inform recruitment and communication strategies for reaching both urban and rural communities.

Accessing health services through the back door: a qualitative interview study investigating reasons why people participate in health research in Canada

BACKGROUND

Although there is extensive information about why people participate in clinical trials, studies are largely based on quantitative evidence and typically focus on single conditions. Over the last decade investigations into why people volunteer for health research have become increasingly prominent across diverse research settings, offering variable based explanations of participation patterns driven primarily by recruitment concerns. Therapeutic misconception and altruism have emerged as predominant themes in this literature on motivations to participate in health research. This paper contributes to more recent qualitative approaches to understanding how and why people come to participate in various types of health research. We focus on the experience of participating and the meanings research participation has for people within the context of their lives and their health and illness biographies.

METHODS

This is a qualitative exploratory study informed by grounded theory strategies. Thirty-nine participants recruited in British Columbia and Manitoba, Canada, who had taken part in a diverse range of health research studies participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants described their experiences of health research participation including motivations for volunteering. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using constant comparisons. Coding and data management was supported by Nvivo-7.

RESULTS

A predominant theme to emerge was 'participation in health research to access health services.' Participants described research as ways of accessing: (1) Medications that offered (hope of) relief; (2) better care; (3) technologies for monitoring health or illness. Participants perceived standard medical care to be a "trial and error" process akin to research, which further blurred the boundaries between research and treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings have implications for recruitment, informed consent, and the dichotomizing of medical/health procedures as either research or treatment. Those with low health status may be more vulnerable to potential coercion, suggesting the need for a more cautious approach to obtaining consent. Our findings also indicate the need for boundary work in order to better differentiate treatment and research. It is important however to acknowledge a categorical ambiguity; it is not always the case that people are misinformed about the possible benefits of research procedures (i.e., therapeutic misconception); our participants were aware that the primary purpose of research is to gain new knowledge yet they also identified a range of actual health benefits arising from their participation.

Concealment and fabrication by experienced research subjects

BACKGROUND

Subjects who enroll in multiple studies have been found to use deception at times to overcome restrictive screening criteria. Deception undermines subject safety as well as study integrity. Little is known about the extent to which experienced research subjects use deception and what type of information is concealed, withheld, or distorted.

PURPOSE

This study examined the prevalence of deception and types of deception used by subjects enrolling in multiple studies.

METHODS

Self-report of deceptive behavior used to gain entry into clinical trials was measured among a sample of 100 subjects who had participated in at least two studies in the past year.

RESULTS

Three quarters of subjects reported concealing some health information from researchers in their lifetime to avoid exclusion from enrollment in a study. Health problems were concealed by 32% of the sample, use of prescribed medications by 28%, and recreational drug use by 20% of the sample. One quarter of subjects reported exaggerating symptoms in order to qualify for a study and 14% reported pretending to have a health condition in order to qualify.

LIMITATIONS

Although this study finds high rates of lifetime deceptive behavior, the frequency and context of this behavior is unknown. Understanding the context and frequency of deception will inform the extent to which it jeopardizes study integrity and safety.

CONCLUSION

The use of deception threatens both participant safety and the integrity of research findings. Deception may be fueled in part by undue inducements, overly restrictive criteria for entry, and increased demand for healthy controls. Screening measures designed to detect deception among study subjects would aid in both protecting subjects and ensuring the quality of research findings.

'That was helpful … no one has talked to me about that before': Research participation as a therapeutic activity

There is considerable interest in the various ethical problems associated with undertaking health and social science research. Participants in such research are often considered vulnerable because of their health status, social position, or dependence on others for health and welfare services. Researchers and ethics committees pay scrupulous attention to the identification and amelioration of risks to participants. Rarely are the benefits to participants of engaging in research highlighted or drawn to the attention of potential participants. Such potential benefits need to be considered by researchers and reviewers when considering the balance of benefits and harms associated with research projects. In this paper, we particularly consider the psychotherapeutic benefits of participation in research.

Good intentions and dangerous assumptions: Research ethics committees and illicit drug use research

Illicit drug users are frequently identified as a ‘vulnerable population’ requiring ‘special protection’ and ‘additional safeguards’ in research. However, without specific guidance on how to enact these special protections and safeguards, research ethics committee (REC) members sometimes fall back on untested assumptions about the ethics of illicit drug use research. In light of growing calls for ‘evidence-based research ethics’, this commentary examines three common assumptions amongst REC members about what constitutes ethical research with drug users, and whether such assumptions are borne out by a growing body of empirical data. The assumptions that form the focus of this commentary are as follows: (i) drug users do not have the capacity to provide informed consent to research; (ii) it is ethically problematic to provide financial incentives to drug users to participate in research; and (iii) asking drug users about their experiences ‘re-traumatizes’ and ‘re-victimizes’ them.

A Review of Paying Research Participants: It's Time to Move Beyond the ethical Debate

CURRENT REGULATORY GUIDELINES REQUIRE the ethical review committee to consider one question when evaluating payment: Is the payment to the participant undue or coercive? Although this is a seemingly simple question, determining appropriate payment involves a series of complex issues. There is limited empirical knowledge to assist with this determination and little consensus on which elements of a study should be considered in making these decisions. For example, should the culture of the study population or the potential risks and benefits of the research be considered in the selection of appropriate payment? Following a review of national and international guidelines, the concerns and benefits of paying research participants are presented, and prior ethical debate is outlined. The current research literature on the practice of paying participants and the impact of payment on participants and study integrity are reviewed. Finally, given continued debate with limited data to help determine best practices, a research agenda is proposed to assist in the development of an empirical basis to aid investigators and ethical review committees in making appropriate decisions about payment to research participants.

Altruism and participation in longitudinal health research? Insights from the Whitehall II Study

Research that follows people over a period of time (longitudinal or panel studies) is important in understanding the ageing process and changes over time in the lives of older people. Older people may choose to leave studies due to frailty, or illness and this may diminish the value of the study. However, people also drop out of studies for other reasons and understanding the motivation behind participation or drop out may prevent further loss of valuable longitudinal information and assist the continuation of longitudinal studies. This paper examines qualitative data from interviews and focus groups in 2003/2008 with participants of the Whitehall II Study (based at UCL), and investigates reasons participants give for participating in longitudinal health studies, and recommendations they give for encouraging continued participation as they grow older. A total of 28 participants and 14 staff were interviewed, and 17 participants took part in focus groups. Our findings are discussed in the light of the debate between of altruism and reciprocity. Rather than being wholly motivated by altruism, as research staff had assumed, participants were motivated by the benefits they perceived, particularly the information and care received during the medical examinations and the sense of loyalty and membership associated with being part of the study. Our findings support the view that far from being primarily motivated by altruism, research participation in studies such as this may also involve a degree of implicit and explicit reciprocity. However, participants disliked the obligation to complete the study questionnaires--which may have influenced the expectation of payment or reciprocation, as participation was not wholly pleasing. To try and maintain participation in longitudinal health studies this project recommended gathering information from exit interviews as a way of preventing further withdrawals and closer involvement of participants through a user panel.

What women who use drugs have to say about ethical research: findings of an exploratory qualitative study

Drug users are generally seen as a vulnerable population requiring special protection in research; however, to date there has been little empirical research into the ethics of research with illicit drug users. Moreover, the available research has tended to treat "drug users" as a homogeneous category, and has failed to consider potential gender differences in users' experiences. Drawing on focus groups with twenty-seven female drug users in Vancouver, Canada, this study examines women's experiences of research and what they see as ethical and respectful engagement. Many study participants talked about feeling dehumanized as a result of prior research participation. Women were critical of the assumption that drug users lack the capacity to take part in research, and affirmed the appropriateness of financial incentives. A variety of motivations for research participation were identified, including a desire for financial gain and altruistic concerns such as a desire to help others. These findings suggest that women drug users' views on ethical research differ from prevailing assumptions among institutional review boards about how research with such populations should proceed.

Motivational assessment of non-treatment buprenorphine research participation in heroin dependent individuals

BACKGROUND

Heroin abuse remains an important public health problem, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. Insight into this problem is gained from interviewing addicted individuals. However, we lack systematic data on factors that motivate heroin users to participate in non-treatment research that offers both financial incentives (compensation) and non-financial incentives (e.g., short-term medication).

AIM

To better understand the relative importance of several types of personal motivations to participate in non-treatment buprenorphine research, and to relate self-motivations to social, economic, demographic and drug use factors.

METHODS

Heroin dependent volunteers (N=235 total; 57 female and 178 male; 136 African American, 86 Caucasian, and 13 Other) applied for non-therapeutic buprenorphine research in an urban outpatient setting from 2004 to 2008. We conducted a semi-structured behavioral economic interview, after which participants ranked 11 possible motivations for research participation.

RESULTS

Although the study was repeatedly described as non-treatment research involving buprenorphine, participants often ranked some treatment-related motivations as important (wanting to reduce/stop heroin use, needing a medication to get stabilized/detoxify). Some motivations correlated with income, heroin use, and years since marketing of buprenorphine. Two dimensions emerged from principal component analysis of motivation rankings: (1) treatment motivation vs. greater immediate needs and (2) commitment to trying alternatives vs. a more accepting attitude toward traditional interventions. In summary, heroin addicts' self-motivations to engage in non-therapeutic research are complex--they value economic gain but not exclusively or primarily--and relate to variables such as socioeconomic factors and drug use.

Motivators and barriers influencing willingness to participate in candidate HCV vaccine trials: perspectives of people who inject drugs

BACKGROUND

A safe and efficacious vaccine may be the most efficient and cost-effective strategy for controlling the hepatitis C virus (HCV) epidemic among people who inject drugs (PWID) and several candidates are in development. However, little is known about the factors that influence willingness to participate (WTP) in candidate HCV vaccine trials among this group.

METHODS

HCV seronegative PWID recruited between 2008 and 2010 as part of a prospective observational cohort study in Sydney, Australia were asked whether they would be willing to participate in a future candidate hepatitis C vaccine trial and to provide reasons to explain their decision.

RESULTS

Of 113 participants, 74% indicated WTP, 15% were unwilling to participate and 11% reported WTP that was contingent on vaccine characteristics and trial design issues. The most commonly reported motivator for hypothetical trial participation was altruism, followed by potential health benefits, financial remuneration, and knowledge gain. Barriers to hypothetical participation included fears about possible harms to health, such as concerns about vaccine safety, side effects, and acquiring HCV from the vaccine; other barriers included mistrust of biomedical research and time constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

These results may be useful in designing strategies to enhance HCV vaccine trial recruitment and retention and have ethical implications for developing informed consent processes and standards of care.