Database of Empirical Studies Addressing Issues Related to the Participation of Human Subjects in Substance Abuse Research

1. Respect for Persons: Recognition of the personal dignity and autonomy of individuals

• 1.1. Comprehension of informed consent
  
  • 1.1.3. Fureman et al., 1997. Evaluation of a video-supplement to informed consent: injection drug users and preventive HIV vaccine efficacy trials. AIDS Educ. Prev. 9, 330-341. Abstract
  • 1.1.4. Harrison et al., 1995. Medical eligibility, comprehension of the consent process, and retention in injection drug users recruited for an HIV vaccine trial. J. Acq. Immune Defic. Syndro. Hum. Retrovirol. 10, 386-390. Abstract        PDF
  • 1.1.5. MacQueen et al., 1999. Willingness of injection drug users to participate in an HIV vaccine efficacy trial in Bangkok, Thailand. J. Acq. Immune Defic. Syndr. 21, 243–251. Abstract        PDF
    

• 1.2. Use of payment incentives
  • 1.2.3. Festinger et al., 2005. Do research payments precipitate drug use or coerce participation? Drug Alcohol Depend. 78, 275–281. Abstract          PDF via DAD website
  • 1.2.6. Reynolds et al., 2000. The role of employment cycles and incentives in the recruitment of drug users. Adv. Med. Sociol. 7, 289–300. Abstract
    

2. Beneficence: Maximizing anticipated benefits and minimizing possible risks of harm

• 2.1. Benefits and risks of participation in research
  • 2.1.2. Fry & Dwyer, 2001. For love or money? An exploratory study of why injecting drug users participate in research. Addiction 96, 1319–1325. Abstract
    
• 2.2. Experimental administration of drugs and alcohol
  • 2.2.1. Drobes and Anton, 2000. Drinking in alcoholics following an alcohol challenge research protocol. J. Stud. Alcohol. 61, 220–224. Abstract
  • 2.2.2. Elman et al., 2001. Clinical outcomes following cocaine infusion in non-treatment-seeking individuals with cocaine dependence. Biol. Psychiat. 49, 553–555. Abstract
  • 2.2.3. Faillace et al., 1972. Giving alcohol to alcoholics: an evaluation. Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol. 33, 85–90. Abstract
  • 2.2.4. Kaufman et al., 2000. Illicit cocaine use patterns in intravenous-naïve cocaine users following investigational intravenous cocaine administration. Drug Alcohol Depend. 58, 35–42. Abstract            PDF via DAD website
  • 2.2.5. Kranzler et al., 1990. Giving ethanol to alcoholics in a research setting: its effect on compliance with disulfiram treatment. Br. J. Addict. 85, 119–123. Abstract
  • 2.2.6. Loberg et al., 1988. Do drinking experiments have a negative effect on alcoholics’ recovery? Br. J. Addict. 83, 1429–1437. Abstract
  • 2.2.7. Modell et al., 1993. The ethics and safety of alcohol administration in the experimental setting to individuals who have chronic, severe alcohol problems. Alcohol Alcohol. 28, 189–197. Abstract
  • 2.2.8. Sinha et al., 1999. Naturalistic follow-up of drinking behavior following participation in an alcohol administration study. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 17, 159–162. Abstract
    
• 2.3. Privacy & confidentiality
  • 2.3.1. McCrady & Bux, 1999. Ethical issues in informed consent with substance abusers. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 67, 186–193. Abstract
    

3. Justice: Fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of research

• 3.1. Carroll et al., 1999. ‘Research’ versus ‘real-world’ patients: representativeness of participants in clinical trials of treatments for cocaine dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 54, 171–177. Abstract            PDF via DAD website
• 3.2. Gorelick et al., 1998. Sociodemographic representation in published studies of cocaine abuse pharmacotherapy. Drug Alcohol Depend. 49, 89–93. Abstract            PDF via DAD website