Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38867177›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Navigating the challenges of imposter participants in online qualitative research: lessons learned from a paediatric health services study.

Pakhi Sharma, Steven M McPhail, Sanjeewa Kularatna, Sameera Senanayake, Bridget Abell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. I have been scammed in my qualitative research.Research integrity and peer review · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. 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 · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pakhi SharmaAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia. p33.sharma@hdr.qut.edu.au.
Steven M McPhailAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Sanjeewa KularatnaAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Sameera SenanayakeAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Bridget AbellAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Congenital Heart Disease Grant 2020-2024 ARGCHDG0035
6 · The paper itself

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

Focus GroupsQualitative ResearchAdultAustraliaChildFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansInternetInterviews as TopicMaleFraudImposter participantsOnline researchPaediatric neurodevelopmental careResearch integrity

Identifiers

PMID38867177
PMCPMC11170877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.