Researchers and research organizations acknowledge the importance of paying research participants but often overlook the process of providing participant payments as a locus for improving equity and inclusion in clinical research. In this conceptual paper, we argue that participants’ lived experiences and social context should be recognized and respected when developing these processes.

We consider how participant payment processes that require specific payment types, delay the timing of payment, or require sharing sensitive information may impose barriers to equitable research. Building on findings from empirical research of participants’ perspectives on respect in research and a relational ethics framework of person-oriented research ethics, we explore how researchers and research organizations can better demonstrate respect through the research participation payment process.

We propose five considerations for demonstrating respect when providing payment: (1) practice cultural humility, (2) be mindful of socioeconomic factors, (3) be flexible, (4) be transparent, and (5) maintain open communication. These considerations are intended to address the lack of existing ethical guidance around the process for participant payments and promote more inclusive clinical research. We provide a set of sample questions for research teams to consider how they could modify their payment processes to better demonstrate respect.

By better demonstrating respect for participants when providing payment, researchers can work toward ensuring that their research procedures are more inclusive, respond to the needs of diverse communities, and result in more equitable relationships with participants.

Clinical research staff play a critical role in recruiting families for pediatric research, but their views are not well described. We aimed to describe how pediatric research staff build trusting research relationships with patients and their families.

We interviewed research staff at one pediatric research institution and its affiliated academic medical center between November 2020 and February 2021. Staff were eligible if they conducted participant recruitment, consent, and/or enrollment for clinical research. We developed our semi-structured interview guide based on a framework for trusting researcher-community partnerships.

We interviewed 28 research staff, with a median age of 28 years (range 22–50) and a median of 5 years of experience (range 1–29). Interviewees identified factors relevant to relationship building across three levels: the individual staff member, the relational interaction with the family, and the institutional or other structural backdrop. Individual factors included how staff developed recruitment skills, their perceived roles, and their personal motivations. Relational factors spanned four stages of recruitment: before the approach, forming an initial connection with a family, building the connection, and following up. Structural factors were related to access and diversity, clinical interactions, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research staff discussed tensions and supports with various actors, challenges with the integration of research and clinical care, the importance of voluntariness for building trust, and multiple contributors to inequities in research. These findings reveal the importance of ensuring research staff have a voice in institutional policies and are supported to advocate for patients and families.

Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of “access to genomic medicine” is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking.

Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them.

CSER’s enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies.

Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.