Making Sure the Incentive is not Coercive Posted on February 28, 2006 John Landsverk (bio) suggests focus groups as a way to determine fair incentives.

Some payments may distort parent's or child's decisions and lead to choices that are not in the child's best interests. A payment of $200 for a very very poor family that has no more than $800 or $1000 a month for the family expenses would be considered coercive, so that's the line that IRBs deal with. How much can you recognize and honor the participation and the time of your participant but not make it impossible for them to say, "I do not want to participate"? That's the issue of coercion.

The findings are clear there is lack of explicit IRB policies and guidance for investigators. One thing that Celia Fisher [Fordham University] has suggested to us is when you're thinking about how much to pay, bring together a focus group of the kinds of client families or families that you want to participate and put it to them. "What should we be paying for that assistance? We want to make sure that it is not coercive, that it does not force you to say yes." One thought that Celia had is bring to your IRB application findings from a focus group with the kind of folks that you want to participate in that study.

Payments to parents or children. It's OK to reimburse, tokens of appreciation. We've used McDonald's; we've used Wal-Mart; we've used lots of different kinds of things like that although McDonald's was a tough fight in terms of whether it was appropriate; we have some nutrition folks that have viewed it differently. It is never never OK for payments to parents or children to reflect increased research risk. You do not pay to get people to be involved in increased risk.

« Back to Article