Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Financial compensation during recruitment did not improve consent rates for Alzheimer's disease study participants in this trial

Financial compensation during recruitment did not improve consent rates for Alzheimer's disease…
Photo by Vellito / Flux Schnell
Key Takeaway
Offering financial compensation during recruitment did not increase consent rates and may lower them in highly educated Alzheimer's disease study populations.

A randomized controlled trial involving 320 analyzed participants from a highly educated sample investigated the impact of describing potential financial compensation during recruitment for an Alzheimer's disease study. The intervention group, which received this description, showed a lower consent rate than the control group where no compensation was mentioned. The primary outcome focused specifically on participant enrollment success.

Further analysis revealed that the consent rate in the intervention group was statistically lower than the control group in the per-protocol analysis. The effect size indicated a reduction of 12.72 points, with a p-value of 0.026. Other causal effect estimates also pointed toward lower enrollment in the compensated group, though statistical significance varied across different analytical approaches.

The study highlights a potential limitation where financial incentives might not work as expected for certain demographics. Researchers noted that compensation could affect individuals with lower socioeconomic status differently than the highly educated sample used here. These findings caution against assuming financial compensation universally improves recruitment in clinical trials.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
INTRODUCTION: Recruitment and retention remains a major challenge in Alzheimer's disease research. This study examined the impact of describing potential financial compensation during recruitment on participant enrollment to a longitudinal cohort. METHODS: Participant recruitment calls (N = 337) were randomized to either a compensation-mentioned group (n = 170) or a control group (n = 167). An intention-to-treat logistic regression assessed the effect of compensation on enrollment. RESULTS: Of 320 analyzed, 124 (38.75%) enrolled. The intervention group's consent rate was lower than the control group's in intention-to-treat (-9.72 points; p = 0.074), per-protocol (-12.72 points; p = 0.026), and complier average causal effect analyses (-11.36 points; p = 0.72). DISCUSSION: Disclosing compensation during recruitment may reduce enrollment, potentially due to perceptions that compensation conflicts with altruistic motives. However, this was observed in a highly educated sample; compensation may affect those with lower levels of education and socioeconomic status differently by helping offset participation burden, warranting further investigation.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.