Long-standing concerns over if, when, and how to compensate clinical trial participants for the time and effort they put into studies are akin to a “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” dilemma for many research practitioners.
Setting aside the budgeting details involved in remuneration, the ethical issues raised often prompt clinical trial team members to ponder whether it’s a good idea to encourage patients to volunteer upfront by offering minor stipends, selective reimbursements, or outright significant payments for their participation. Or, should those who stay involved for the duration instead be rewarded for their time and effort, but only after the study is closed? Is that unfair to those who had to drop out for whatever reason?
Then again, should participants be expected to do what they do, no matter how burdensome, out of the goodness of their hearts—for the sake of advancing medical knowledge—if not mainly for their own benefit? And if payments are on the table, how much is too much, or might be considered coercive in some cases?
“The topic of research subject compensation has been controversial and contentious amongst research professionals due to the worry of inducement or the risk of jeopardizing a patient’s autonomy,” says Steffi Leung Newell, MS, RN, OCN, CCRC, a Clinical Research Nurse with the Research and Clinical Trials Office at Rush University System for Health in Chicago who will dive into the fray during ACRP 2025 in New Orleans in April. “My presentation will help with disproving this perception and show that compensation sets trials and participants up for success.”
Newell has worked with the compliance team and her fellow researchers at Rush to understand these intricate situations in her own practice, ensuring that patient care aligns with the ethical principles of research. She explains that, in her presentation on “Compensating Research Subjects: The Fine Line Between Fairness and Inducement,” she intends to equip members of her audience who work at study sites with the tools they need to mitigate any undue influence, determine proper compensation amounts, and understand how to provide payments appropriately. But that’s not all she has in mind.
“Even though my presentation is aimed at individuals on the site level, I think all members of the research community can find this presentation valuable as a reminder that subject compensation is an important factor in promoting recruitment, retention, and diversity in trials,” Newell adds.
Compensating Research Subjects: The Fine Line Between Fairness and Inducement
Join Steffi at ACRP 2025 [April 24-27; New Orleans, La.] as she focuses on helping attendees understand what undue inducement of human research subjects is and how to reconcile this with fair compensation for participating in clinical trials. View complete schedule.
Saying she hopes that the big takeaway from her talk will be that “subject compensation should no longer be viewed as a taboo topic, and it is a disservice to participants to continue to treat it as such,” Newell stresses that compensation is best thought of as a necessity in creating accessible and fair clinical trials.
Newell’s presentation is one among many in a Regulatory & Compliance Journey that has been mapped out for ACRP 2025. Other content journeys, or tracks, that attendees may wish to follow focus on Study & Site Management, Clinical Trial Design, Leadership & Professionalism, Workforce Development, and Technology & Future Trends.
Edited by Gary Cramer
