MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
Detecting and Preventing Fraudulent Participation in Qualitative Research: Content Analysis of Two Multisite Studies.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Harden Destiny, Rodriguez Nicolette, Roybal Kristi, Coffin Tara, Johnson Gina, Le Beaux Kelley, Connolly Maria, Rountree Jennifer, Ukaegbu Chinedu, Revette Anna C, Nava-Coulter Brett, Caruso Alyson, Roberts Jane, Brodney Suzanne, Schoolcraft Kimberly, Syngal Sapna, Drew David A, May Folasade P, Haas Jennifer S, Wendt Staci J, Warner Erica T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of web-based approaches to identify, recruit, enroll, survey, and interview health-related research participants has increased over time, with rapid acceleration since the COVID-19 pandemic. These approaches can make research more accessible to a broader population, but also increase the risk of fraudulent or imposter participants infiltrating research studies. While this threat has been discussed extensively in quantitative survey research, less has been reported in qualitative and mixed methods studies.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify recurring patterns of fraudulent study participation and to offer strategies for identification, remediation, and reporting.
METHODS: Encounters with fraudulent or imposter individuals during recruitment, enrollment, survey distribution, data collection, and focus group sessions in 2 multisite qualitative and mixed methods research studies are presented. Content from both studies was analyzed to identify common themes and develop strategies for prevention and remediation.
RESULTS: Investigators across 2 multisite studies observed several indicators of suspected fraudulent activity, including large response volumes over a short period, highly repetitive email addresses, higher-than-expected proportions of phone numbers with area codes outside the study area, and unusual email/phone responses using atypical language and phrasing. Several imposter or fraudulent individuals disrupted online focus group sessions. To mitigate these issues, both studies implemented remediation strategies, including enhanced screening procedures at baseline, cross-checking of survey responses, and additional identity verification methods prior to participation. Studies took various actions to address these experiences, including notifying the institutional review board, recruitment platforms, and funders.
CONCLUSIONS: This multisite study identified multiple ways that imposter or fraudulent participants can pose a significant and evolving threat to the integrity of qualitative and mixed methods. These types of fraudulent actors can distort data and undermine research credibility. Lessons learned highlight the importance of real-time recruitment and enrollment analysis and the need for transparent reporting. Addressing this issue will require a comprehensive approach to prevent and address fraudulent study participation that includes collaboration with multiple stakeholders and the broader research community to effectively address this issue.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify recurring patterns of fraudulent study participation and to offer strategies for identification, remediation, and reporting.
METHODS: Encounters with fraudulent or imposter individuals during recruitment, enrollment, survey distribution, data collection, and focus group sessions in 2 multisite qualitative and mixed methods research studies are presented. Content from both studies was analyzed to identify common themes and develop strategies for prevention and remediation.
RESULTS: Investigators across 2 multisite studies observed several indicators of suspected fraudulent activity, including large response volumes over a short period, highly repetitive email addresses, higher-than-expected proportions of phone numbers with area codes outside the study area, and unusual email/phone responses using atypical language and phrasing. Several imposter or fraudulent individuals disrupted online focus group sessions. To mitigate these issues, both studies implemented remediation strategies, including enhanced screening procedures at baseline, cross-checking of survey responses, and additional identity verification methods prior to participation. Studies took various actions to address these experiences, including notifying the institutional review board, recruitment platforms, and funders.
CONCLUSIONS: This multisite study identified multiple ways that imposter or fraudulent participants can pose a significant and evolving threat to the integrity of qualitative and mixed methods. These types of fraudulent actors can distort data and undermine research credibility. Lessons learned highlight the importance of real-time recruitment and enrollment analysis and the need for transparent reporting. Addressing this issue will require a comprehensive approach to prevent and address fraudulent study participation that includes collaboration with multiple stakeholders and the broader research community to effectively address this issue.