Randomized evaluation of trial acceptability by INcentive (RETAIN): Study protocol for two embedded randomized controlled trials

Dustin C. Krutsinger, Jacqueline McMahon, Alisa J. Stephens-Shields, Brian Bayes, Steven Brooks, Brian L Hitsman, Su Fen Lubitz, Celine Reyes, Robert A. Schnoll, S. Ryan Greysen, Ashley Mercede, Mitesh S. Patel, Catherine Reale, Fran Barg, Jason Karlawish, Daniel Polsky, Kevin G. Volpp, Scott D. Halpern

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: The most common and conceptually sound ethical concerns with financial incentives for research participation are that they may (1) represent undue inducements by blunting peoples' perceptions of research risks, thereby preventing fully informed consent; or (2) represent unjust inducements by encouraging enrollment preferentially among the poor. Neither of these concerns has been shown to manifest in studies testing the effects of incentives on decisions to participate in hypothetical randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but neither has been assessed in real RCTs. Methods and analyses: We are conducting randomized trials of real incentives embedded within two parent RCTs. In each of two trials conducted in parallel, we are randomizing 576 participants to one of three incentive groups. Following preliminary determination of patients' eligibility in the parent RCT, we assess patients' research attitudes, demographic characteristics, perceived research risks, time spent reviewing consent documents, ability to distinguish research from patient care, and comprehension of key trial features. These quantitative assessments will be supplemented by semi-structured interviews for a selected group of participants that more deeply explore patients' motivations for trial participation. The trials are each designed to have adequate power to rule out undue and unjust inducement. We are also exploring potential benefits of incentives, including possible increased attention to research risks and cost-effectiveness.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages1-8
Number of pages8
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials
Volume76
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Behavioral Economics
Ethics
Motivation
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research
Eligibility Determination
Consent Forms
Aptitude
Informed Consent
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Patient Care
Demography
Interviews

Keywords

  • Behavioral economics
  • Ethics
  • Incentives
  • Nudge
  • Randomized controlled trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Krutsinger, Dustin C. ; McMahon, Jacqueline ; Stephens-Shields, Alisa J. ; Bayes, Brian ; Brooks, Steven ; Hitsman, Brian L ; Lubitz, Su Fen ; Reyes, Celine ; Schnoll, Robert A. ; Ryan Greysen, S. ; Mercede, Ashley ; Patel, Mitesh S. ; Reale, Catherine ; Barg, Fran ; Karlawish, Jason ; Polsky, Daniel ; Volpp, Kevin G. ; Halpern, Scott D. / Randomized evaluation of trial acceptability by INcentive (RETAIN) : Study protocol for two embedded randomized controlled trials. In: Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2019 ; Vol. 76. pp. 1-8.
@article{2dda4cf03baa43a1967cc76c9c65a261,
title = "Randomized evaluation of trial acceptability by INcentive (RETAIN): Study protocol for two embedded randomized controlled trials",
abstract = "Introduction: The most common and conceptually sound ethical concerns with financial incentives for research participation are that they may (1) represent undue inducements by blunting peoples' perceptions of research risks, thereby preventing fully informed consent; or (2) represent unjust inducements by encouraging enrollment preferentially among the poor. Neither of these concerns has been shown to manifest in studies testing the effects of incentives on decisions to participate in hypothetical randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but neither has been assessed in real RCTs. Methods and analyses: We are conducting randomized trials of real incentives embedded within two parent RCTs. In each of two trials conducted in parallel, we are randomizing 576 participants to one of three incentive groups. Following preliminary determination of patients' eligibility in the parent RCT, we assess patients' research attitudes, demographic characteristics, perceived research risks, time spent reviewing consent documents, ability to distinguish research from patient care, and comprehension of key trial features. These quantitative assessments will be supplemented by semi-structured interviews for a selected group of participants that more deeply explore patients' motivations for trial participation. The trials are each designed to have adequate power to rule out undue and unjust inducement. We are also exploring potential benefits of incentives, including possible increased attention to research risks and cost-effectiveness.",
keywords = "Behavioral economics, Ethics, Incentives, Nudge, Randomized controlled trials",
author = "Krutsinger, {Dustin C.} and Jacqueline McMahon and Stephens-Shields, {Alisa J.} and Brian Bayes and Steven Brooks and Hitsman, {Brian L} and Lubitz, {Su Fen} and Celine Reyes and Schnoll, {Robert A.} and {Ryan Greysen}, S. and Ashley Mercede and Patel, {Mitesh S.} and Catherine Reale and Fran Barg and Jason Karlawish and Daniel Polsky and Volpp, {Kevin G.} and Halpern, {Scott D.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cct.2018.11.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "1--8",
journal = "Contemporary Clinical Trials",
issn = "1551-7144",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

Krutsinger, DC, McMahon, J, Stephens-Shields, AJ, Bayes, B, Brooks, S, Hitsman, BL, Lubitz, SF, Reyes, C, Schnoll, RA, Ryan Greysen, S, Mercede, A, Patel, MS, Reale, C, Barg, F, Karlawish, J, Polsky, D, Volpp, KG & Halpern, SD 2019, 'Randomized evaluation of trial acceptability by INcentive (RETAIN): Study protocol for two embedded randomized controlled trials' Contemporary Clinical Trials, vol. 76, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2018.11.007

Randomized evaluation of trial acceptability by INcentive (RETAIN) : Study protocol for two embedded randomized controlled trials. / Krutsinger, Dustin C.; McMahon, Jacqueline; Stephens-Shields, Alisa J.; Bayes, Brian; Brooks, Steven; Hitsman, Brian L; Lubitz, Su Fen; Reyes, Celine; Schnoll, Robert A.; Ryan Greysen, S.; Mercede, Ashley; Patel, Mitesh S.; Reale, Catherine; Barg, Fran; Karlawish, Jason; Polsky, Daniel; Volpp, Kevin G.; Halpern, Scott D.

In: Contemporary Clinical Trials, Vol. 76, 01.01.2019, p. 1-8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized evaluation of trial acceptability by INcentive (RETAIN)

T2 - Contemporary Clinical Trials

AU - Krutsinger, Dustin C.

AU - McMahon, Jacqueline

AU - Stephens-Shields, Alisa J.

AU - Bayes, Brian

AU - Brooks, Steven

AU - Hitsman, Brian L

AU - Lubitz, Su Fen

AU - Reyes, Celine

AU - Schnoll, Robert A.

AU - Ryan Greysen, S.

AU - Mercede, Ashley

AU - Patel, Mitesh S.

AU - Reale, Catherine

AU - Barg, Fran

AU - Karlawish, Jason

AU - Polsky, Daniel

AU - Volpp, Kevin G.

AU - Halpern, Scott D.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Introduction: The most common and conceptually sound ethical concerns with financial incentives for research participation are that they may (1) represent undue inducements by blunting peoples' perceptions of research risks, thereby preventing fully informed consent; or (2) represent unjust inducements by encouraging enrollment preferentially among the poor. Neither of these concerns has been shown to manifest in studies testing the effects of incentives on decisions to participate in hypothetical randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but neither has been assessed in real RCTs. Methods and analyses: We are conducting randomized trials of real incentives embedded within two parent RCTs. In each of two trials conducted in parallel, we are randomizing 576 participants to one of three incentive groups. Following preliminary determination of patients' eligibility in the parent RCT, we assess patients' research attitudes, demographic characteristics, perceived research risks, time spent reviewing consent documents, ability to distinguish research from patient care, and comprehension of key trial features. These quantitative assessments will be supplemented by semi-structured interviews for a selected group of participants that more deeply explore patients' motivations for trial participation. The trials are each designed to have adequate power to rule out undue and unjust inducement. We are also exploring potential benefits of incentives, including possible increased attention to research risks and cost-effectiveness.

AB - Introduction: The most common and conceptually sound ethical concerns with financial incentives for research participation are that they may (1) represent undue inducements by blunting peoples' perceptions of research risks, thereby preventing fully informed consent; or (2) represent unjust inducements by encouraging enrollment preferentially among the poor. Neither of these concerns has been shown to manifest in studies testing the effects of incentives on decisions to participate in hypothetical randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but neither has been assessed in real RCTs. Methods and analyses: We are conducting randomized trials of real incentives embedded within two parent RCTs. In each of two trials conducted in parallel, we are randomizing 576 participants to one of three incentive groups. Following preliminary determination of patients' eligibility in the parent RCT, we assess patients' research attitudes, demographic characteristics, perceived research risks, time spent reviewing consent documents, ability to distinguish research from patient care, and comprehension of key trial features. These quantitative assessments will be supplemented by semi-structured interviews for a selected group of participants that more deeply explore patients' motivations for trial participation. The trials are each designed to have adequate power to rule out undue and unjust inducement. We are also exploring potential benefits of incentives, including possible increased attention to research risks and cost-effectiveness.

KW - Behavioral economics

KW - Ethics

KW - Incentives

KW - Nudge

KW - Randomized controlled trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056585875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056585875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2018.11.007

DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2018.11.007

M3 - Article

VL - 76

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials

JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials

SN - 1551-7144

ER -