Nav: Home

When research participation pays, some people lie, Penn study suggests

February 14, 2019

PHILADELPHIA - Offering compensation can be an important tactic to attract potential participants for enrollment in research studies, but it might come at a cost. A new study conducted by researchers in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania found that up to 23 percent of respondents lied about their eligibility to participate in a survey when offered payment, even small amounts.

Anecdotal evidence and common sense suggest that offering money may encourage participants to lie about their eligibility or other aspects of study participation in order to secure payment, the authors said. But few studies have investigated whether and to what extent people will deceive, leaving a major gap in the literature. The new findings, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest the practice may be pervasive.

A total of 2,275 respondents participated in a nationally representative, randomized survey on flu vaccination status. One study group lacked motivation to lie about whether they had recently had a flu shot because their eligibility didn't depend on it. Their reported rates of flu vaccination were therefore used to determine the true rate of vaccination in the study population. Other groups were offered $5, $10, or $20 for participation and were told they were eligible only if they had (or in some groups, had not) received a recent flu shot. If no one was lying, all study groups would have reported about the same rates of flu vaccination.

"Instead, we found evidence of significant deception by participants who were not eligible, but claimed they were in order to be able to join the study," said first author Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, MBE, an assistant professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy. "This type of behavior not only undermines a study's integrity and its results, but in a study with eligibility criteria that are intended to protect participants, it also has the potential to put participants at risk."

In the control group, 52.2 percent of respondents reported a recent flu shot. But when told that eligibility depended on recent flu vaccination and financial compensation of $5, $10, or $20 was offered, reports of vaccination jumped to 63.1 percent, 62.8 percent, and 62.1 percent, respectively. When told that eligibility depended on having not received a recent flu vaccination, reports of vaccination dropped to 46.5 percent at $5, 41.8 percent at $10, and 46.7 percent at $20. Because the only differences between these groups were their eligibility criteria and payment amounts, the differences in their reported vaccination rates can be attributed to deception. The researchers calculated that between 10.5 and 22.8 percent of participants engaged in deception about their eligibility to participate.

The authors say one of the study's most interesting findings is that more money wasn't associated with higher rates of deception. "This suggests that keeping payments low will not necessarily prevent deception," said study co-author Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, chief of the division of Medical Ethics, "It also suggests that higher payments may encourage recruitment without posing a greater risk to the study's integrity."

The study's senior author Emily A. Largent, PhD, JD, RN, an assistant professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, emphasized the importance of finding ways to minimize deception by study participants. "Rather than relying on self-reporting by participants, investigators should use objective metrics whenever possible," Largent said. "The best response to our findings is not necessarily to reduce or eliminate payment offers for participation. Payment can help boost legitimate enrollment; in addition, investigators may owe payment as compensation for the time, effort, and burden that participants assume by joining the study."

Although this study was conducted in the context of survey research, its findings support the need for further studies in clinical trials, where payment amounts and other benefits, like access to investigational drugs, as well as study risks, are often more substantial.
Additional Penn co-authors include Harsha Thirumurthy, PhD, and Dawei Xei, PhD.

The work was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (UL1TR001878), as well as the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics and the Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics at the Perelman School of Medicine.

Penn Medicine is one of the world's leading academic medical centers, dedicated to the related missions of medical education, biomedical research, and excellence in patient care. Penn Medicine consists of the Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (founded in 1765 as the nation's first medical school) and the University of Pennsylvania Health System, which together form a $7.8 billion enterprise.

The Perelman School of Medicine has been ranked among the top medical schools in the United States for more than 20 years, according to U.S. News & World Report's survey of research-oriented medical schools. The School is consistently among the nation's top recipients of funding from the National Institutes of Health, with $405 million awarded in the 2017 fiscal year.

The University of Pennsylvania Health System's patient care facilities include: The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Presbyterian Medical Center -- which are recognized as one of the nation's top "Honor Roll" hospitals by U.S. News & World Report -- Chester County Hospital; Lancaster General Health; Penn Medicine Princeton Health; Penn Wissahickon Hospice; and Pennsylvania Hospital - the nation's first hospital, founded in 1751. Additional affiliated inpatient care facilities and services throughout the Philadelphia region include Good Shepherd Penn Partners, a partnership between Good Shepherd Rehabilitation Network and Penn Medicine, and Princeton House Behavioral Health, a leading provider of highly skilled and compassionate behavioral healthcare.

Penn Medicine is committed to improving lives and health through a variety of community-based programs and activities. In fiscal year 2017, Penn Medicine provided $500 million to benefit our community.

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

Related Clinical Trials Articles:

Review evaluates how AI could boost the success of clinical trials
In a review publishing July 17, 2019 in the journal Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, researchers examined how artificial intelligence (AI) could affect drug development in the coming decade.
Kidney patients are neglected in clinical trials
The exclusion of patients with kidney diseases from clinical trials remains an unsolved problem that hinders optimal care of these patients.
Clinical trials beginning for possible preeclampsia treatment
For over 20 years, a team of researchers at Lund University has worked on developing a drug against preeclampsia -- a serious disorder which annually affects around 9 million pregnant women worldwide and is one of the main causes of death in both mothers and unborn babies.
Underenrollment in clinical trials: Patients not the problem
The authors of the study published this month in the Journal of Clinical Oncology investigated why many cancer clinical trials fail to enroll enough patients.
When designing clinical trials for huntington's disease, first ask the experts
Progress in understanding the genetic mutation responsible for Huntington's disease (HD) and at least some molecular underpinnings of the disease has resulted in a new era of clinical testing of potential treatments.
More Clinical Trials News and Clinical Trials Current Events

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Erasing The Stigma
Many of us either cope with mental illness or know someone who does. But we still have a hard time talking about it. This hour, TED speakers explore ways to push past — and even erase — the stigma. Guests include musician and comedian Jordan Raskopoulos, neuroscientist and psychiatrist Thomas Insel, psychiatrist Dixon Chibanda, anxiety and depression researcher Olivia Remes, and entrepreneur Sangu Delle.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#537 Science Journalism, Hold the Hype
Everyone's seen a piece of science getting over-exaggerated in the media. Most people would be quick to blame journalists and big media for getting in wrong. In many cases, you'd be right. But there's other sources of hype in science journalism. and one of them can be found in the humble, and little-known press release. We're talking with Chris Chambers about doing science about science journalism, and where the hype creeps in. Related links: The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial This...