FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2794814499> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2794814499 endingPage "e18" @default.
• W2794814499 startingPage "e15" @default.
• W2794814499 abstract "To the Editors: Financial incentives (FIs)—in which money is given to an individual in return for a certain action—have been highly effective in motivating a variety of health-related behaviors and HIV interventions, including HIV prevention,1,2 testing,3–6 linkage to care and retention,7,8 and treatment adherence.9–11 Despite their increasing use in research and programs, there are ethical concerns, including the potential for coercion and unintended social harm.12,13 Using FI to motivate pediatric HIV testing raises special ethical concerns in this vulnerable population, particularly because the incentives are provided to caregivers who take children for testing. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Pediatric HIV testing and treatment maximizes survival and reduces morbidity.14–16 However, there are programmatic gaps in the testing cascade that result in late diagnosis and preventable deaths.17 Index-case testing strategies, targeting HIV-infected parents receiving care, increase uptake of pediatric HIV testing18–20; however, the majority still opt for not taking their child for testing, due to fear, misconception of risk, and financial barriers.18,21 FI may be an effective intervention to incentivize HIV-infected parents to test their children. The Financial Incentives to Increase Pediatric HIV Testing Pilot Study (NCT02931422) tested the effect of small FI (USD 5–15) to motivate HIV-infected caregivers to test their children. Eligible caregivers were randomized to one of 3 FI values at recruitment, which would be given to the caregiver on return for child testing.22 The one adverse event recorded during the study was categorized as a social harm; a 11-year-old girl ran away from home temporarily to avoid being tested for HIV. In addition to social harms, the study team attempted to assess the potential for coercion and unintended harm using a structured questionnaire. Analyses revealed discordance between questions assessing coercion or a lack of voluntariness (“Did the offer of money make you feel like you had no choice, you had to test your child?”) and intention to test (“When would you have tested your children without the incentive?”). Specifically, parents who stated that they would have tested their children for HIV even without FI also indicated that they felt the incentive gave them no choice but to test, potentially suggesting FIs were ethically problematic because they were coercive. A literature review of other FI studies revealed no agreement how best to measure or report coercion.1,23 The study team thus engaged the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics at Seattle Children's Hospital to provide guidance in how to assess coercion and other ethical considerations related to FI. ETHICAL ANALYSIS Concerns about the use of FIs are often framed by researchers, ethicists, and ethics review committees in terms of (1) coercion, (2) undue inducement, and (3) lack of voluntariness. However, these concepts are often used without precision and clarity. In addition, most existing scholarship focuses on the ethics of FI for research participation, rather than the use of FI to promote behavior change to improve health outcomes. We will argue that, in the context of FI use for behavior change, researchers should not focus on misplaced concerns about coercion or undue inducement, but try to measure the impact of FI on voluntariness or the potential for social harms. COERCION Although most IRBs consider incentives coercive if a person feels they have no choice but to perform the incentivized behavior, this is based on widespread confusion about the concept of coercion.12 The influential Belmont Report states that “coercion occurs when an overt threat of harm is intentionally presented by one person to another to obtain compliance,”24 suggesting that there are 2 important features of coercion: (1) it is morally wrong, and (2) it requires an intentional threat of harm. Scholars have extended this definition to note that threats to violate someone's rights if they do not comply also count as coercive.25 Some argue that FIs offered to people living in poverty are coercive if individuals have no reasonable alternative but to do what is necessary to be paid. However, Wertheimer and Miller describe the case of a woman who is diagnosed with breast cancer and is offered urgent, life-saving surgery; there is nothing morally wrong about the offer, despite the fact that the patient has no reasonable alternative. They argue that “genuine offers cannot coerce.”25 For pediatric HIV testing, however, it is possible that parents interested in FIs will force their children to be tested or impose consequences if they refuse. Parents generally have the authority to require their children to engage in activities that are intended to benefit their children, ranging from brushing their teeth to staying in school. This suggests that, in general, there is not necessarily anything wrong with parents requiring their children to take an HIV test, provided it does not go beyond the limits of acceptable treatment of children (such as resorting to abuse or threats of violence). Incentives at such low levels as offered in the Financial Incentives to Increase Pediatric HIV Testing study seem insufficient to motivate parents to mistreat their children. Nevertheless, measuring whether and how often social harms occur is important to inform future implementation. UNDUE INDUCEMENT Incentives or inducements are widespread and well accepted; people generally receive compensation for employment, for instance. Undue inducement is problematic and can occur in research when FIs are high enough to tempt participants to ignore high risks or make decisions contrary to their core values.26 Determining whether an incentive is unduly large varies by context and circumstance. Perhaps the most prominent model in the literature for determining whether payments are undue inducements is the “Wage-Payment model,” which concludes that payments that are similar to what an individual would otherwise earn for similar work and the amount of time required are not undue.26 However, pediatric HIV testing and treatment offers substantial, proven benefits for the children involved, and few risks. In addition, the incentives being offered ranged between $5 and $15, the highest level representing an estimated cost of transportation and 2 days' lost wages. Testing a child typically takes a half day of time, requiring a parent to skip a half day or a full day or work—or only slightly more than the Wage-Payment model would require. In this population, mean monthly income was $83 [median (IQR): $48 ($15–$100)]. Given that these incentives are not unduly large by comparison to what individuals could earn otherwise, it is unlikely that parents would ignore risks or violate their deeply held values because of these payments.27 In fact, given the low risks and significant potential for benefit involved, higher incentives could also be ethically appropriate. This is because FIs to promote healthy behaviors can be autonomy-enhancing, in that they help people to “bring about a personal change they might already desire, through a means with which they are already familiar” by eliminating financial or other barriers to action.28 Arguably, an even stronger case can be made that FIs to promote healthy behaviors are welfare-enhancing, which is the appropriate ethical and legal focus of parents making decisions on behalf of their children. VOLUNTARINESS Coercion and undue inducement are 2 types of interference with a person's ability to make a voluntary decision, but there are other, more subtle influences on decision making. For instance, a person might have the perception that they are being coerced, and even if that perception is inaccurate, it may influence their decision nonetheless. Although coercion and undue influence are not significant ethical concerns in this context, ensuring voluntariness is more complicated. First, it is hard to know what counts as sufficiently voluntary because there are many different influences that can affect day-to-day decision making.29 Few, if any, decisions are completely voluntary. Second, measuring voluntariness is challenging. Previous studies have sought to measure voluntariness by determining whether some individuals choose not to participate, whether participants report feeling pressure to participate in a study, and whether participants know they could refuse participation or withdraw; however, each of these approaches has limitations. Some individuals may choose not to participate at the same time that other individuals feel their decision was not their own. In other studies, although some research participants have reported feeling pressure to participate in research, when asked about the source of the pressure, it comes from their child's illness, not the study team.30 Finally, some research participants who reported knowing that they could withdraw also indicated a belief that the clinic would not let them quit.31 This suggests that questions seeking to measure voluntariness should be carefully crafted to determine whether pressure felt by study participants could be attributed to a specific and ethically problematic source. SUMMARY Coercion and undue inducement are not significant ethical concerns in offering FI for pediatric HIV testing, provided FIs are not so large as to exert undue influence, and the interventions are beneficial and not excessively risky. The authors are currently working to measure voluntariness in the uptake of FI and social harms that may result from their use, which are challenging issues that merit further attention." @default.
• W2794814499 created "2018-04-06" @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5003205253 @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5003676309 @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5007081009 @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5019647254 @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5021447658 @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5039476773 @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5046611670 @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5048323364 @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5051394894 @default.
• W2794814499 creator A5088420489 @default.
• W2794814499 date "2018-07-01" @default.
• W2794814499 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2794814499 title "Financial Incentives to Motivate Pediatric HIV Testing—Assessing the Potential for Coercion, Inducement, and Voluntariness" @default.
• W2794814499 cites W1593345018 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W1873611069 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W1913337589 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W1963719336 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W1973031667 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W1987573857 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2002945998 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2041073238 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2047810999 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2048185809 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2048392686 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2076422447 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2087603097 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2122307162 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2122986037 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2135390958 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2153244256 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2156258495 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2157791740 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2158040892 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2162730683 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2259318738 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2300528075 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2304866602 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2551545899 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2571442308 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2619166940 @default.
• W2794814499 cites W2794811429 @default.
• W2794814499 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/qai.0000000000001689" @default.
• W2794814499 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6002913" @default.
• W2794814499 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29601404" @default.
• W2794814499 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2794814499 type Work @default.
• W2794814499 sameAs 2794814499 @default.
• W2794814499 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2794814499 countsByYear W27948144992018 @default.
• W2794814499 countsByYear W27948144992020 @default.
• W2794814499 countsByYear W27948144992021 @default.
• W2794814499 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5003205253 @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5003676309 @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5007081009 @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5019647254 @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5021447658 @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5039476773 @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5046611670 @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5048323364 @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5051394894 @default.
• W2794814499 hasAuthorship W2794814499A5088420489 @default.
• W2794814499 hasBestOaLocation W27948144992 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C159047783 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C162118730 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C2777188754 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C2777249218 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C29122968 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C3013748606 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C138885662 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C144133560 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C15744967 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C159047783 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C162118730 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C162324750 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C175444787 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C17744445 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C199539241 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C2777188754 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C2777249218 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C29122968 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C3013748606 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C41895202 @default.
• W2794814499 hasConceptScore W2794814499C71924100 @default.
• W2794814499 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2794814499 hasLocation W27948144991 @default.
• W2794814499 hasLocation W27948144992 @default.

• next