Effects of disclosing financial interests on participation in medical research: A randomized vignette trial

Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27715, USA.
American heart journal (Impact Factor: 4.46). 10/2008; 156(4):689-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.06.001
Source: PubMed


Little is known about the effects of investigators' financial disclosures on potential research participants.
We conducted a vignette trial in which 470 participants in a telephone survey were randomly assigned to receive a simulated informed consent document that contained 1 of 2 financial disclosures (per capita payments to the research institution or equity ownership by the investigator) or no disclosure. The main outcome measures were trust in medical research and willingness to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial.
Participants in the equity group reported less willingness to participate than participants in the per capita payments group (P = .01) and the no disclosure group (P = .03). Trust in the investigator was highest in the per capita payments group and lowest in the equity group (P < .001). Trust among participants who received no disclosure was also greater than trust among participants in the equity group (P = .04) but did not differ significantly from trust among participants in the per capita payments group (P = .15). Participants in the equity group made 3 times as many negative comments as participants in the per capita payments group; and 10 participants in the equity group spontaneously said they would not participate in the hypothetical trial because of the financial interest, compared with only 1 such participant from the other groups.
Although investigators' financial disclosures in research do not substantially affect willingness to participate, potential research participants are more troubled by equity interests than by per capita payments.

Download full-text


Available from: Li Lin,
    • "However, with respect to nonhomogeneity of covariance matrices (Box M 227.92, p .0001), some of our dependent variables violate this assumption. MANCOVA, however, is known to be consistently robust against violation of the assumptions of normality of the dependent variables, as well as the homogeneity of the covariances matrices (Weinfurt et al., 2008). We, nevertheless, conducted nonparametric tests on the data as well as the MANCOVA. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We used unique data sets from Dreamboard and SurveyMonkey to test the hypothesis that aggression levels would vary significantly with content of recurrent nightmares, nonrecurrent nightmares, and unpleasant dreams. Exactly 475 nightmares and 433 unpleasant dreams were collected from Dreamboard users, while 135 nightmares were collected from individuals who reported having recurrent nightmares via a SurveyMonkey survey. Results demonstrated that physical aggression and anxiety levels were significantly higher for nightmares from individuals who reported recurrent nightmares relative to nightmares from people not reporting recurrent nightmares who in turn reported nightmares, which evidenced higher physical aggression levels relative to unpleasant dreams. Use of personal pronouns, verbs, and social terms were significantly reduced in recurrent nightmares relative to regular nightmares and unpleasant dreams. Aggressors were most often supernatural agents in recurrent nightmares; unfamiliar males in regular nightmares and familiar males in unpleasant dreams. Physical aggression against the dreamer was the most common theme in nightmares while interpersonal conflict was the most common theme in unpleasant dreams. Nightmares associated with awakenings evidenced significantly higher levels of aggression relative to nightmares not associated with awakenings. People with recurrent nightmares were 3 times more likely to report a relative on their maternal side with recurrent nightmares. We conclude that levels of physical aggression within the dream and targeted against the dreamer distinguishes recurrent from nonrecurrent nightmares and unpleasant dreams.
    Dreaming 09/2015; 25(3). DOI:10.1037/a0039273 · 0.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is near universal recognition that human participant protection is both morally and practically essential for all forms of research involving humans. Yet most of the discourse around human participant protection has focussed on norms—rules, regulations and governance arrangements—rather than on the actual effectiveness of these norms in achieving their ends—protecting participants from undue risk and ensuring respectful treatment as well as advancing the generation of useful knowledge. In recent years there has been increasing advocacy for evidence-based human participant protection that would be grounded on the careful investigation of the effects of research on human participants. We offer an analysis of evidence-based protection and then focus on Canadian examples of research on evidence-based protection. We consider the prospects for such research being put into practice in Canada. Finally we connect our remarks to the theme of “the changing landscape of human participant protection.”
    Journal of Academic Ethics 06/2009; 7(1):1-16. DOI:10.1007/s10805-009-9082-3
  • Source

Show more