ArticleBMC health services research2024
Navigating the challenges of imposter participants in online qualitative research: lessons learned from a paediatric health services study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Text Messaging Intervention for Postpartum Alcohol Use: Micro-Randomized Trial Supports Feasibility, Acceptability, and Maternal Message Preference.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 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
- 'The Right to Have a Family Should Not Be Determined by Your Postcode': Rural Community Experiences With Fertility Care.The Australian journal of rural health · 2026Article
- Detecting and Preventing Fraudulent Participation in Qualitative Research: Content Analysis of Two Multisite Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Young people's lived experience expertise: Insights from the DigiCAT project to develop a counterfactual analysis tool for mental health data.JCPP advances · 2026Article
- A pragmatic adaptive trial of hope-focused mentoring to improve mental health and social outcomes for young women who are not in education, employment or training in deprived coastal areas (The Looking Forward Project): feasibility trial stage protocol.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- "We do what needs to be done": caregivers' experiences of healthcare and support for people with multiple long-term conditions in the last year of life.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- "We're on the journey now together": a qualitative examination of "close others'" perspectives on barriers and facilitators to help-seeking for eating disorders.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Editorial Perspective: A call for action on imposter participants in child and adolescent mental health research.Child and adolescent mental health · 2026Article
- Early Childhood Behavioral and Social-Emotional Development Among Asian Indian, Filipino, and Korean Families in the United States: A Pilot Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A pilot feasibility and acceptability evaluation of Trans Care: A CBPR digital health intervention for transgender and nonbinary adults experiencing gender dysphoria.International journal of transgender health · 2026Article
- What goals does China's medical insurance fund supervision aim to achieve? A quantitative analysis based on national-level policies.BMC health services research · 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
- Pragmatic and ethical challenges in navigating inauthentic participation in remote qualitative research.Research ethics · 2025Article
- I have been scammed in my qualitative research.Research integrity and peer review · 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
- Adapting an Osteoarthritis Peer Mentorship Intervention for Remote Delivery to People Experiencing Socioeconomic Disadvantage: A Multi-Method Approach.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Preferences for Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Care for Children: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe growth in online qualitative research and data collection provides several advantages for health service researchers and participants, including convenience and extended geographic reach. However, these online processes can also present unexpected challenges, including instances of participant fraud or scam behaviour. This study describes an incident of participant fraud identified during online focus group discussions and interviews for a PhD health services research project on paediatric neurodevelopmental care.
methodsWe aimed to recruit carers of Australian children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Potential participants were recruited via a publicly available social media advert on Facebook offering $50 AUD compensation. Those who expressed interest via email (n = 254) were sent a pre-interview Qualtrics survey to complete. We identified imposters at an early stage via inconsistencies in their self-reported geographical location and that captured by the survey as well as recognition of suspicious actions before, during and after focus group discussions and interviews.
resultsInterest in participation was unexpectedly high. We determined that all potential participants were likely imposters, posing as multiple individuals and using different IP addresses across Nigeria, Australia, and the United States. In doing so, we were able to characterise several "red flags" for identifying imposter participants, particularly those posing as multiple individuals. These comprise a combination of factors including large volumes and strange timings of email responses, unlikely demographic characteristics, short or vague interviews, a preference for nonvisual participation, fixation on monetary compensation, and inconsistencies in reported geographical location. Additionally, we propose several strategies to combat this issue such as providing proof of location or eligibility during recruitment and data collection, examining email and consent form patterns, and comparing demographic data with regional statistics.
conclusionsThe emergent risk of imposter participants is an important consideration for those seeking to conduct health services research using qualitative approaches in online environments. Methodological design choices intended to improve equity and access for the target population may have an unintended consequence of improving access for fraudulent actors unless appropriate risk mitigation strategies are also employed. Lessons learned from this experience are likely to be valuable for novice health service researchers involved in online focus group discussions and interviews.
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.