Ethical and regulatory considerations in HIV prevention studies employing respondent-driven sampling

Salaam Semaan, Scott Santibanez, Richard S. Garfein, Douglas D. Heckathorn, Don Des Jarlais

Research output: Contribution to journalShort survey

Abstract

Objective: To review the scientific, ethical, and regulatory literature because no official guidance exists on remuneration for participant-driven recruitment or on investigators' responsibilities for informing participants of their discordant partnerships. Methods: We reviewed the studies that used RDS to recruit injection-drug users (IDUs), 1995-2006, and the relevant scientific, ethical, and regulatory literature that shed light on arguments for and against practices that can be used in studies employing RDS. Results: Concerns that payments can be used to buy drugs or can subvert altruistic motivations for study participation are not supported by the literature. Concerns about peers' coercion to barter coupons or surrender payments are offset by safeguards used in RDS. Remuneration shows respect for participants' time and effort in recruitment and judgment to use remuneration for personal needs. Tension between ensuring participants' confidentiality and protecting the health of network members highlights difference in roles between investigators and health care providers. Investigators can choose to rely on public health agencies for partner notification services, ask participants if and how they would like to be informed of their discordant partnerships, and offer training on how to disclose HIV status and adopt risk-reduction and harm-reduction behaviours. Conclusion: Clarifying ethical and regulatory considerations is important for research sponsors, institutional review boards (IRBs), ethics review committees (ERCs), investigators, and participants. We provide a checklist of ethics and regulatory variables to be included as feasible in future studies to enhance development of evidence-based ethics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)14-27
Number of pages14
JournalInternational Journal of Drug Policy
Volume20
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2009

Fingerprint

Remuneration
Research Personnel
HIV
Ethics
Ethical Review
Contact Tracing
Coercion
Harm Reduction
Ethics Committees
Research Ethics Committees
Confidentiality
Advisory Committees
Risk Reduction Behavior
Drug Users
Checklist
Health Personnel
Motivation
Public Health
Injections
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Ethics
  • Hidden populations
  • HIV disclosure
  • Incentives
  • Injection-drug user
  • Men who have sex with men
  • Respondent-driven sampling
  • Sexual risk

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Ethical and regulatory considerations in HIV prevention studies employing respondent-driven sampling. / Semaan, Salaam; Santibanez, Scott; Garfein, Richard S.; Heckathorn, Douglas D.; Des Jarlais, Don.

In: International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1, 01.01.2009, p. 14-27.

Research output: Contribution to journalShort survey

Semaan, Salaam ; Santibanez, Scott ; Garfein, Richard S. ; Heckathorn, Douglas D. ; Des Jarlais, Don. / Ethical and regulatory considerations in HIV prevention studies employing respondent-driven sampling. In: International Journal of Drug Policy. 2009 ; Vol. 20, No. 1. pp. 14-27.
@article{882688fdba514a8b82d34049ba2634e3,
title = "Ethical and regulatory considerations in HIV prevention studies employing respondent-driven sampling",
abstract = "Objective: To review the scientific, ethical, and regulatory literature because no official guidance exists on remuneration for participant-driven recruitment or on investigators' responsibilities for informing participants of their discordant partnerships. Methods: We reviewed the studies that used RDS to recruit injection-drug users (IDUs), 1995-2006, and the relevant scientific, ethical, and regulatory literature that shed light on arguments for and against practices that can be used in studies employing RDS. Results: Concerns that payments can be used to buy drugs or can subvert altruistic motivations for study participation are not supported by the literature. Concerns about peers' coercion to barter coupons or surrender payments are offset by safeguards used in RDS. Remuneration shows respect for participants' time and effort in recruitment and judgment to use remuneration for personal needs. Tension between ensuring participants' confidentiality and protecting the health of network members highlights difference in roles between investigators and health care providers. Investigators can choose to rely on public health agencies for partner notification services, ask participants if and how they would like to be informed of their discordant partnerships, and offer training on how to disclose HIV status and adopt risk-reduction and harm-reduction behaviours. Conclusion: Clarifying ethical and regulatory considerations is important for research sponsors, institutional review boards (IRBs), ethics review committees (ERCs), investigators, and participants. We provide a checklist of ethics and regulatory variables to be included as feasible in future studies to enhance development of evidence-based ethics.",
keywords = "Ethics, Hidden populations, HIV disclosure, Incentives, Injection-drug user, Men who have sex with men, Respondent-driven sampling, Sexual risk",
author = "Salaam Semaan and Scott Santibanez and Garfein, {Richard S.} and Heckathorn, {Douglas D.} and {Des Jarlais}, Don",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.12.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "14--27",
journal = "International Journal of Drug Policy",
issn = "0955-3959",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethical and regulatory considerations in HIV prevention studies employing respondent-driven sampling

AU - Semaan, Salaam

AU - Santibanez, Scott

AU - Garfein, Richard S.

AU - Heckathorn, Douglas D.

AU - Des Jarlais, Don

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Objective: To review the scientific, ethical, and regulatory literature because no official guidance exists on remuneration for participant-driven recruitment or on investigators' responsibilities for informing participants of their discordant partnerships. Methods: We reviewed the studies that used RDS to recruit injection-drug users (IDUs), 1995-2006, and the relevant scientific, ethical, and regulatory literature that shed light on arguments for and against practices that can be used in studies employing RDS. Results: Concerns that payments can be used to buy drugs or can subvert altruistic motivations for study participation are not supported by the literature. Concerns about peers' coercion to barter coupons or surrender payments are offset by safeguards used in RDS. Remuneration shows respect for participants' time and effort in recruitment and judgment to use remuneration for personal needs. Tension between ensuring participants' confidentiality and protecting the health of network members highlights difference in roles between investigators and health care providers. Investigators can choose to rely on public health agencies for partner notification services, ask participants if and how they would like to be informed of their discordant partnerships, and offer training on how to disclose HIV status and adopt risk-reduction and harm-reduction behaviours. Conclusion: Clarifying ethical and regulatory considerations is important for research sponsors, institutional review boards (IRBs), ethics review committees (ERCs), investigators, and participants. We provide a checklist of ethics and regulatory variables to be included as feasible in future studies to enhance development of evidence-based ethics.

AB - Objective: To review the scientific, ethical, and regulatory literature because no official guidance exists on remuneration for participant-driven recruitment or on investigators' responsibilities for informing participants of their discordant partnerships. Methods: We reviewed the studies that used RDS to recruit injection-drug users (IDUs), 1995-2006, and the relevant scientific, ethical, and regulatory literature that shed light on arguments for and against practices that can be used in studies employing RDS. Results: Concerns that payments can be used to buy drugs or can subvert altruistic motivations for study participation are not supported by the literature. Concerns about peers' coercion to barter coupons or surrender payments are offset by safeguards used in RDS. Remuneration shows respect for participants' time and effort in recruitment and judgment to use remuneration for personal needs. Tension between ensuring participants' confidentiality and protecting the health of network members highlights difference in roles between investigators and health care providers. Investigators can choose to rely on public health agencies for partner notification services, ask participants if and how they would like to be informed of their discordant partnerships, and offer training on how to disclose HIV status and adopt risk-reduction and harm-reduction behaviours. Conclusion: Clarifying ethical and regulatory considerations is important for research sponsors, institutional review boards (IRBs), ethics review committees (ERCs), investigators, and participants. We provide a checklist of ethics and regulatory variables to be included as feasible in future studies to enhance development of evidence-based ethics.

KW - Ethics

KW - Hidden populations

KW - HIV disclosure

KW - Incentives

KW - Injection-drug user

KW - Men who have sex with men

KW - Respondent-driven sampling

KW - Sexual risk

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57549108547&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57549108547&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.12.006

DO - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.12.006

M3 - Short survey

VL - 20

SP - 14

EP - 27

JO - International Journal of Drug Policy

JF - International Journal of Drug Policy

SN - 0955-3959

IS - 1

ER -