Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39874573›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2025

Detecting Deception and Ensuring Data Integrity in a Nationwide mHealth Randomized Controlled Trial: Factorial Design Survey Study.

Krista M Kezbers, Michael C Robertson, Emily T Hébert, Audrey Montgomery, Michael S Businelle

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT05194228 nacompletednot on this map

Exemplar: Determining the Best Practices for EMA Studies

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OklahomaRan2021 to 2022Enrolled416ConditionsEcological Momentary Assessment Best PracticesArmsEcologial Momentary Assessment settings
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. 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.

Krista M KezbersTobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8387-2781
Michael C RobertsonTobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2240-014X
Emily T HébertTobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5922-164X
Audrey MontgomeryTobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3468-6800
Michael S BusinelleTobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9038-2238

Funding

Tissue Pathology Shared ResourceP30CA225520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI James F Papin · 2018 to 2026
$27.1M
Using Machine Learning to Develop Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions for Smoking CessationR00DA046564 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI HEBERT, EMILY TAYLOR · 2021 to 2023
$747k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA225520NIDA NIH HHS R00 DA046564
6 · The paper itself

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

Data AccuracyDeceptionTelemedicineAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSmartphoneSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesbehaviordata integritydeceptionecological momentary assessmentenrollmentfactorial designfraudmHealthmobile phonerandomized controlled trialRCTrecruitmentsocial

Identifiers

PMID39874573
PMCPMC11815295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.