Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the interviewed investigators.

	N = 69	%
Gender
Male	46	66.7
Female	23	33.3
Age
25–34	9	13.0
35–44	22	31.9
45–54	22	31.9
55–64	13	18.8
65–74	2	2.9
>75	1	1.5
Employment Sector
Public Academic Institution	45	65.2
Zambian Non-Governmental Organization	8	11.6
International Non-Government Organization	6	8.7
Private Academic Institution	4	5.8
Other	4	5.8
Zambian Government (Non-Academic/Non-Hospital)	2	2.9

Table 2. Factors considered when offering monetary and non-monetary goods and services to participants.

Money (N = 31)			Non-monetary goods (N = 28)
	N	%		N	%
Compensation for time, transport, parking etc.	28	90.32	Preferred by study participants	16	57.14
Required by a Research Ethics Committee	9	29.03	Advised by the community	10	35.71
Difficulty recruiting	1	3.23	Used previously by self or a colleague	9	32.14
Wage rate	1	3.23	Required by a Research Ethics Committee	5	17.86
			Reward participants for their time	2	7.14
			Food offered as lunch	2	7.14
			Non-monetary good deemed more appropriate	2	7.14
			Difficulty recruiting	2	7.14
			Study risks	1	3.57
			Decision on good to offer done arbitrary	1	3.57

Table 3. REC policies and requests to offer, revise or remove a proposed good.

REC	Written policy on offers?	Asked researcher to offer reward?	Reasons	Asked researcher to revise reward?	Reasons	Asked researcher to remove reward?	Reasons
REC #1	Yes	No		Yes	Reward was inducement	Yes	Economic/social conditions of study population – vulnerable to exploitation
REC #2	No	No		No		No
REC #3	No	No		Yes	Reward too excessive	No
REC #4	No	No		Yes	Reward too little	No
REC #5	No	Yes	To compensate for lost wages due to participation To compensation for transport Study location Large amount of time required for participation	No		No

Table 4. Benefits and challenges of offering goods to participants.

Benefits (N = 49)			Challenges (N = 49)
	N	%		N	%
Helped build community trust	18	36.74	Participants wanting more than offered	8	16.3
Helped with retaining participants	12	24.49	Mistrust by participants/community	4	8.2
Helped with recruitment	4	8.16	False/withholding information to meet eligibility criteria	3	6.1
No reported benefits	15	30.61	Recruitment of potentially vulnerable	2	4.1
			Distributional challenges	2	4.1
			No reported challenges	30	61.2