Equality and Equity in Compensating Patient Engagement in Research: A Plea for Exceptionalism

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS
J. Bélisle-Pipon, V. Couture, Marie-Christine Roy
{"title":"Equality and Equity in Compensating Patient Engagement in Research: A Plea for Exceptionalism","authors":"J. Bélisle-Pipon, V. Couture, Marie-Christine Roy","doi":"10.1177/17470161211059993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Engaging citizens and patients in research has become a truism in many fields of health research. It is now seen as a laudable—if not compulsory—activity in research for yielding more impactful and meaningful citizen/patient outcomes and steering research in the right direction. Although this research approach is increasingly common and commendable, we recently encountered a major obstacle in obtaining an ethics certificate from an institutional review board (IRB) to conduct a study that places citizen/patient perspectives on equal footing with those of academic/policy experts. The obstacle was the interpretation of fairness in terms of compensation for research participation (i.e. honoraria). In terms of research ethics, this raised an important question: Should all types of participants be compensated equally, or should exceptions be made for citizen/patient participants? We argue that there are good reasons for exceptionalism and that clearer guidance on citizen/patient engagement in research should be embedded into research ethics doctrine.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"30 1","pages":"126 - 131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211059993","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Engaging citizens and patients in research has become a truism in many fields of health research. It is now seen as a laudable—if not compulsory—activity in research for yielding more impactful and meaningful citizen/patient outcomes and steering research in the right direction. Although this research approach is increasingly common and commendable, we recently encountered a major obstacle in obtaining an ethics certificate from an institutional review board (IRB) to conduct a study that places citizen/patient perspectives on equal footing with those of academic/policy experts. The obstacle was the interpretation of fairness in terms of compensation for research participation (i.e. honoraria). In terms of research ethics, this raised an important question: Should all types of participants be compensated equally, or should exceptions be made for citizen/patient participants? We argue that there are good reasons for exceptionalism and that clearer guidance on citizen/patient engagement in research should be embedded into research ethics doctrine.
补偿患者参与研究的平等与公平:为例外论辩护
在许多卫生研究领域,让公民和患者参与研究已成为一个不言自明的事实。它现在被视为一项值得称赞的——如果不是强制性的——研究活动,因为它产生了更有影响力和有意义的公民/患者结果,并将研究引向正确的方向。虽然这种研究方法越来越普遍和值得赞扬,但我们最近遇到了一个主要障碍,即从机构审查委员会(IRB)获得道德证书,以进行一项将公民/患者的观点与学术/政策专家的观点平等对待的研究。障碍是在研究参与补偿(即酬金)方面对公平性的解释。就研究伦理而言,这提出了一个重要的问题:所有类型的参与者都应该得到平等的补偿,还是应该为公民/患者参与者提供例外?我们认为,例外论有很好的理由,并且应该将公民/患者参与研究的更明确指导嵌入到研究伦理学说中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信