ArticleJMIR formative research2024
Evaluating the Problem of Fraudulent Participants in Health Care Research: Multimethod Pilot Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- A crowdsourced megastudy of 12 digital single-session interventions for depression in US adults.Nature human behaviour · 2026Trial
- Towards best practice recommendations: Perspectives from Australian GPs to inform the use of general practice data for research - A modified Delphi study.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Detecting and Mitigating Fraudulent Participation: Lessons Learned from a Mixed Methods Study.Journal of mixed methods research · 2026Article
- Experiences and Challenges of Patients With Chronic Respiratory Disease During a Virtual Research Study: Qualitative Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Detecting and Preventing Fraudulent Participation in Qualitative Research: Content Analysis of Two Multisite Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Editorial Perspective: A call for action on imposter participants in child and adolescent mental health research.Child and adolescent mental health · 2026Article
- Imposter Participants in Online Nursing Research: Prevalence, Red Flags, and Risk Mitigation Strategies.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Leveraging voice memos recorded via smartphones for qualitative data collection.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- Black Youth and Caregiver Experiences of Racism in Pain Management: A Narrative Inquiry.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Let's Talk aBOT Scam Online Survey Completions in Health Behavior Research: Tutorial With Case Studies, Practical Guidance, and a Checklist for Researchers.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- Preventing and mitigating fraudulent research participants in online qualitative violence and injury prevention research.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Gerontologists combating fraudulent research participants: recommendations from design to dissemination.The Gerontologist · 2025Article
- Recruitment Strategies to Prevent Fraudulent Virtual Enrollment While Respecting Privacy in Vulnerable Populations.Qualitative health research · 2025Article
- Lessons Learned Identifying and Controlling Fraudulent Participation in Online Randomized Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Flagged for Fraud: Lessons From 3 Case Studies on Detecting Inauthentic Participants in Online Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Accessible, not Exploitable: Navigating fraud prevention in disability research.Disability and health journal · 2025Article
- Self-reported changes and experiences with substance use among real-world patients treated with medical ketamine.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- Self-Reported Improvements in Comorbid Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms, Depression, Anxiety, and Sleep Among Real-World Patients Receiving Medical Ketamine: Exploring the Role of Adjunct Therapies.European journal of trauma & dissociation = Revue europeenne du trauma et de la dissociation · 2025Article
- I have been scammed in my qualitative research.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe shift toward online recruitment methods, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has brought to the forefront the growing concern of encountering fraudulent participants in health care research. The increasing prevalence of this issue poses a serious threat to the reliability and integrity of research data and subsequent findings.
objectiveThis study aims to explore the experiences of health care researchers (HCRs) who have encountered fraudulent participants while using online recruitment methods and platforms. The primary objective was to gain insights into how researchers detect and mitigate fraudulent behavior in their work and provide prevention recommendations.
methodsA multimethod sequential design was used for this pilot study, comprising a quantitative arm involving a web-based survey followed by a qualitative arm featuring semistructured interviews. The qualitative description approach framed the qualitative arm of the study. Sample sizes for the quantitative and qualitative arms were based on pragmatic considerations that in part stemmed from encountering fraudulent participants in a concurrent study. Content analysis was used to analyze open-ended survey questions and interview data.
resultsA total of 37 HCRs participated, with 35% (13/37) of them engaging in qualitative interviews. Online platforms such as Facebook, email, Twitter (subsequently rebranded X), and newsletters were the most used methods for recruitment. A total of 84% (31/37) of participants indicated that fraudulent participation occurred in studies that mentioned incentives in their recruitment communications, with 71% (26/37) of HCRs offering physical or electronic gift cards as incentives. Researchers identified several indicators of suspicious behavior, including email surges, discrepancies in contact or personal information, geographical inconsistencies, and suspicious responses to survey questions. HCRs emphasized the need for a comprehensive screening protocol that extends beyond eligibility checks and is seamlessly integrated into the study protocol, grant applications, and research ethics board submissions.
conclusionsThis study sheds light on the intricate and pervasive problem of fraudulent participation in health care research using online recruitment methods. The findings underscore the importance of vigilance and proactivity among HCRs in identifying, preventing, and addressing fraudulent behavior. To effectively tackle this challenge, researchers are encouraged to develop a comprehensive prevention strategy and establish a community of practice, facilitating real-time access to solutions and support and the promotion of ethical research practices. This collaborative approach will enable researchers to effectively address the issue of fraudulent participation, ensuring the conduct of high-quality and ethically sound research in the digital age.
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.