Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly | ISSN 2206-2483

HREC decision-making about social research with children: the influence of payment, risk and method

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Human Research Ethics
on April 21, 2022
0 Comments
Keywords Australia,Beneficence,Consent,Ethical review,Good practice,HREC,Participant protection,Research Ethics Committees,Researcher responsibilities,Respect for persons,Social Science,Vulnerable groups,Young people
A ceramic pink Piggy bank money concept on dark blue background, stuffed with Australian cash, and female hand take one hundred dollar note.

Stephanie Taplin

Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) oversee research conducted in Australia in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, 2007, updated 2018). This ethics review role gives them authority to approve a research study or request modifications. While such safeguards and approvals are appropriate and reasonable, HRECs may be cautious about approving research studies with children about ‘sensitive’ or ‘difficult’ subjects, such as sexuality, or with those who are deemed to be vulnerable, such as children in institutions.

Issues such as payments for children to participate have been controversial for HRECs, with concerns expressed that child participants may be overly influenced or encouraged to take risks they would not take if it were not for the offer of payment. But payments encourage participation and increase recruitment, facilitating children having a say about issues that affect them – even in relation to sensitive issues.

A group of Australian researchers explored how decisions are made about children’s participation in research about sensitive topics via the Managing Ethical Studies on Sensitive Issues (MESSI) study, funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP150100864).

Three papers have now been published from our surveys with children, human research ethics committee members, parents and gatekeepers. Within those surveys we presented hypothetical scenarios describing research studies with child participants using varying sensitivity or risk levels (low, medium to high), study methods (online surveys, face-to face interviews, focus group, or survey in class) and payments (from no payment through to A$30, A$100 a high (A$200) prize draw entry.

From the 151 young people (aged 15-17 years), 43 children (aged 12-14 years) and 183 HREC member responses to the hypothetical scenarios we found:

Risk: The HREC member responses showed they were much more likely to approve a study of low risk or sensitivity than they were to approve a higher risk study. This result held irrespective of the study method or payment level or amount. This finding was also consistent with the responses from the children and young people: children are less likely to participate in the riskier studies.

Payments: HREC members were most likely to approve each of the hypothetical studies if no payment was offered. As payment levels increased, the likelihood of approval by HREC members decreased. Some respondents were so concerned about payments to children that they would not approve any study regardless of the topic or risk level.

In contrast, paying children increases the likelihood they will agree to participate in the studies and, in general, the higher the payments the higher the likelihood they will participate. However, our results also showed payments do not influence them to take unnecessary risks; “undue influence” is unlikely to be as much of a concern as HREC members have previously thought, and should not even be a consideration with low risk studies.

Payments v draws: At the higher risk levels, HREC members approved $200 voucher draws at the same rate as a $30 payment, while for the lower risk studies the $200 voucher draw was preferred to the $30 payment. In contrast, children and young people were equally likely to participate at the different risk levels when offered a $30 payment or entry into a $200 voucher draw. Researchers with more limited research budgets may be encouraged by this finding to offer entry into a $200 voucher draw, as they appear to be acceptable to both HREC members and children and young people.

Methods: Face-to-face interviews conducted at home with children elicited substantially higher rates of approval from HREC members with more sensitive/riskier study topics. However, children may prefer the anonymity of a paper or online survey when providing information about a topic that is sensitive or considered personal, rather than discussing it with a researcher at their home where they may be concerned about being overheard by their parents. Others want to be offered the choice.

These findings may prompt researchers to conclude that to maximize the chance that their study is approved by an HREC, they should avoid the use of a payment for the child participant. However, there are reasons to argue for payments for child participants, as for adults. First, payments increase participation rates and are also appropriate as compensation for time spent on research or reimbursements for expenses. However, there is also a responsibility on the part of research ethics committees to ensure that payments are not too low as to be exploitative. Second, concerns about the “undue influence” of payments are unfounded.

Children and young people can identify risks and are not induced by money to participate in research that they would not have otherwise participated in. On this basis, HREC member concerns can be allayed, and their focus on payments as the reason for denying study approval is unwarranted. Payments of around A$30 may be appropriate for child participants even for high-risk studies. Furthermore, an undue emphasis by HRECs on payment issues rather than managing risks and methodological issues can lead to children and young people being denied that opportunity to consider their own participation.

Research ethics committee members also recognised their lack of expertise in research with children. Both researchers and HRECs would benefit from adopting more transparent, child-inclusive and child-friendly processes, with additional training and guidance for HRECs indicated.

In conclusion, the MESSI study has found that payments can be used to increase the participation of children and young people in research without concerns about undue influence. However, the overriding consideration should always be the level of risk to the children and young people if they participate in the study, as is integral to undertaking such research ethically.

Articles from the MESSI study on which this article is based:

Taplin, S., Chalmers, J., Brown, J., Moore, T., Graham, A. & McArthur, M. (2022 in press) How do Research Ethics Committee members respond to hypothetical studies with children? Results from the MESSI Study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221087530

Taplin, S., Chalmers, J., Brown, J., Moore, T., Graham, A. & McArthur, M. (2022) Human Research Ethics committee experiences and views about children’s participation in research: results from the MESSI Study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 17(1-2), 70-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211048294

Taplin, S., Chalmers, J., Hoban, B., McArthur, M., Moore, T. & Graham, A. (2019) Children in social research: Do higher payments encourage participation in riskier studies? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 14(2), 126-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619826796

This post may be cited as:
Taplin, S. (21 April 2022) HREC decision-making about social research with children: the influence of payment, risk and method. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/hrec-decision-making-about-social-research-with-children-the-influence-of-payment-risk-and-method/

Related reading

How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study (Papers: Stephanie Taplin, et al | March 2022)

What do HREC members think and do when deciding about children’s participation in social research? Results from the MESSI survey

Tongue in Cheek

Friday afternoon funny – Hiding the kids

‘It’s never okay to say no to teachers’: Children’s research consent and dissent in conforming schools contexts (Papers: Perpetua Kirby | May 2020)

(US) This Researcher Exploited Prisoners, Children, and the Elderly. Why Does Penn Honor Him? – The Chronicle of Higher Education (Alexander Kafka, | November 2019)

Should you be worried about paying children to take part in research?

The Ethics of Social Research with Children and Families in Young Lives: Practical Experiences (Book: Virginia Morrow | 2009)

Children in Social Research: Do Higher Payments Encourage Participation in Riskier Studies? (Stephanie Taplin, et al | February 2019)

How We Found Sources for Our Research Misconduct Story — And How You Can Help Us Find More – ProPublica Illinois (Jodi S. Cohen | April 2018)

What’s at risk? Who’s responsible? Moving beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual

Ethical research with young children: Whose research, whose agenda?

A Model for the Participation of Indigenous Children and Young People in Research

Ethics and the Participation of Indigenous Children and Young People in Research

Friday afternoon’s funny – Recruiting kids

More a marathon than a hurdle: towards children’s informed consent in a study on safety (Papers: Tim P More, et al)

‘Except as required by law’: Australian researchers’ legal rights and obligations regarding participant confidentiality

Participatory research with children and young people (Books – Chapter: Susan Groundwater-Smith, et al | 2014)

What We Know About Ethical Research Involving Children in Humanitarian Settings: An overview of principles, the literature and case studies (Papers: Gabrielle Berman, et al)

The Ethics of Social Research with Children and Families in Young Lives: Practical Experiences (2009)

Deception of children in research (Papers: Merle Spriggs & Lynn Gillam 2013)

Internet research ethics (Norwegian National Committees for Research Ethics 2015)

Involving children and young people in research [electronic resource]: A compendium of papers and reflections from a think tank co-hosted by the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth and the NSW Commission for Children and Young People

Understanding Consent in Research Involving Children: The ethical Issues. A Handbook for Human Research Ethics Committees and Researchers

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Corresponding Author

Assoc. Prof. Stephanie Taplin

Sp-user Link
Stephanie has an Adjunct appointment in the School of Public Health.
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail User

About the blog

The senior consultants started AHRECS in 2007. We were looking for a way of responding to requests for advice on research ethics and integrity from the government, health and education sectors read more…

Comment rules

We decided to include comment functionality in the Blog because we want to encourage the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics communities to contribute to public discourse about resourcing and improving practice. read more…

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A smiling group of multi-racial researchers

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in