Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2025
Detecting Deception and Ensuring Data Integrity in a Nationwide mHealth Randomized Controlled Trial: Factorial Design Survey Study.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05194228 (Exemplar), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Exemplar: Determining the Best Practices for EMA Studies
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital management of diabetes global research trends: a bibliometric study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Mobile intervention to address cannabis use disorder among black adults: A proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial.Behaviour research and therapy · 2025Trial
- Practical Fraud Detection and Prevention in Incentivized Online Surveys: Secondary Analysis of the ADOPT Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Associations Between Perceived Discrimination Events and Next-Day Emotions Assessed Via Ecological Momentary Assessments.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2026Article
- Initial Feasibility and Acceptability of Cancer Pain 101: An Interdisciplinary, Single-Session, Telehealth Intervention for Patients With Cancer-Related Pain.Cancer medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSocial behavioral research studies have increasingly shifted to remote recruitment and enrollment procedures. This shifting landscape necessitates evolving best practices to help mitigate the negative impacts of deceptive attempts (eg, fake profiles and bots) at enrolling in behavioral research.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and implement robust deception detection procedures during the enrollment period of a remotely conducted randomized controlled trial.
methodsA 32-group (2×2×2×2×2) factorial design study was conducted from November 2021 to September 2022 to identify mobile health (mHealth) survey design features associated with the highest completion rates of smartphone-based ecological momentary assessments (n=485). Participants were required to be at least 18 years old, live in the United States, and own an Android smartphone that was compatible with the Insight app that was used in the study. Recruitment was conducted remotely through Facebook advertisements, a 5-minute REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) prescreener, and a screening and enrollment phone call. The research team created and implemented a 12-step checklist (eg, address verification and texting a copy of picture identification) to identify and prevent potentially deceptive attempts to enroll in the study. Descriptive statistics were calculated to understand the prevalence of various types of deceptive attempts at study enrollment.
resultsFacebook advertisements resulted in 5236 initiations of the REDCap prescreener. A digital deception detection procedure was implemented for those who were deemed pre-eligible (n=1928). This procedure resulted in 26% (501/1928) of prescreeners being flagged as potentially deceptive. Completing multiple prescreeners (301/501, 60.1%) and providing invalid addresses (156/501, 31.1%) were the most common reasons prescreeners were flagged. An additional 1% (18/1928) of prescreeners were flagged as potentially deceptive during the subsequent study screening and enrollment phone call. Reasons for exclusion at the screening and enrollment phone call level included having an invalid phone type (6/18, 33.3%), completing multiple prescreeners (6/18, 33.3%), and providing an invalid address (5/18, 27.7%). This resulted in 1409 individuals being eligible after all deception checks were completed. Postenrollment social security number checks revealed that 3 (0.6%) fully enrolled participants out of 485 provided erroneous social security numbers during the screening process.
conclusionsImplementation of a deception detection procedure in a remotely conducted randomized controlled trial resulted in a substantial proportion of cases being flagged as potentially engaging in deceptive attempts at study enrollment. The results of the deception detection procedures in this study confirmed the need for vigilance in conducting remote behavioral research in order to maintain data integrity. Implementing systematic deception detection procedures may support study administration, data quality, and participant safety in remotely conducted behavioral research.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05194228; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05194228.
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.