ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2020
Recommendations From a Descriptive Evaluation to Improve Screening Procedures for Web-Based Studies With Couples: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitigating fraud in a fully decentralized clinical trial of a digital health intervention.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Trial
- Methods for Authenticating Participants in Fully Web-Based Mobile App Trials from the iReach Project: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Trial
- Sexual Satisfaction in Spanish Same-Sex Couples: Testing the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- Imposters, Bots, and Other Threats to Data Integrity in Online Research: Scoping Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Best Practices.Online journal of public health informatics · 2025Review
- Assessment of Fraud Deterrence and Detection Procedures Used in a Web-Based Survey Study With Adult Black Cisgender Women: Description of Lessons Learned and Recommendations.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Assessing a Couples-Based, Digital HIV Serostatus-Neutral Intervention (Para Ti, Para Mí, Para Nosotros) for Adult Cisgender Sexual Minority Male Couples in Lima, Peru: Protocol for a 6-Month Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Problem of Fraudulent Participants in Health Care Research: Multimethod Pilot Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- AI-powered fraud and the erosion of online survey integrity: an analysis of 31 fraud detection strategies.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Article
- Partner Support and Communication for Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Use Among Male Couples.Archives of sexual behavior · 2022Article
- Recruiting Black Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM) Couples via Dating Apps: Pilot Study on Challenges and Successes.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Dyadic Influences on Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Use and Attitudes Among Male Couples.AIDS and behavior · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough there are a number of advantages to using the internet to recruit and enroll participants into Web-based research studies, these advantages hinge on data validity. In response to this concern, researchers have provided recommendations for how best to screen for fraudulent survey entries and to handle potentially invalid responses. Yet, the majority of this previous work focuses on screening (ie, verification that individual met the inclusion criteria) and validating data from 1 individual, and not from 2 people who are in a dyadic relationship with one another (eg, same-sex male couple; mother and daughter). Although many of the same data validation and screening recommendations for Web-based studies with individual participants can be used with dyads, there are differences and challenges that need to be considered.
objectiveThis paper aimed to describe the methods used to verify and validate couples' relationships and data from a Web-based research study, as well as the associated lessons learned for application toward future Web-based studies involving the screening and enrollment of couples with dyadic data collection.
methodsWe conducted a descriptive evaluation of the procedures and associated benchmarks (ie, decision rules) used to verify couples' relationships and validate whether data uniquely came from each partner of the couple. Data came from a large convenience sample of same-sex male couples in the United States, who were recruited through social media venues for a Web-based, mixed methods HIV prevention research study.
resultsAmong the 3815 individuals who initiated eligibility screening, 1536 paired individuals (ie, data from both partners of a dyad) were assessed for relationship verification; all passed this benchmark. For data validation, 450 paired individuals (225 dyads) were identified as fraudulent and failed this benchmark, resulting in a total sample size of 1086 paired participants representing 543 same-sex male couples who were enrolled. The lessons learned from the procedures used to screen couples for this Web-based research study have led us to identify and describe four areas that warrant careful attention: (1) creation of new and replacement of certain relationship verification items, (2) identification of resources needed relative to using a manual or electronic approach for screening, (3) examination of approaches to link and identify both partners of the couple, and (4) handling of bots.
conclusionsThe screening items and associated rules used to verify and validate couples' relationships and data worked yet required extensive resources to implement. New or updating some items to verify a couple's relationship may be beneficial for future studies. The procedures used to link and identify whether both partners were coupled also worked, yet they call into question whether new approaches are possible to help increase linkage, suggesting the need for further inquiry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.