Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40073396›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Assessment of Fraud Deterrence and Detection Procedures Used in a Web-Based Survey Study With Adult Black Cisgender Women: Description of Lessons Learned and Recommendations.

Amber I Sophus, Jason W Mitchell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Amber I Sophus *Department of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work, Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5729-5821
Jason W Mitchell *Department of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work, Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-9404

Funding

The FIU Research Center in a Minority Institution (FIU-RCMI)U54MD012393 · NIMHD · FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY · PI Diana Azzam · 2017 to 2026
$32.1M
NIMHD NIH HHS U54 MD012393
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline research studies enable engagement with more Black cisgender women in health-related research. However, fraudulent data collection responses in online studies raise important concerns about data integrity, particularly when incentives are involved.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the strengths and limitations of fraud deterrence and detection procedures implemented in an incentivized, cross-sectional, online study about HIV prevention and sexual health with Black cisgender women living in Texas.

methodsData for this study came from a cross-sectional web-based survey that examined factors associated with potential pre-exposure prophylaxis use among a convenience sample of adult Black cisgender women from 3 metropolitan areas in Texas. Each eligibility screener and associated survey entry was evaluated using 4 fraud deterrence features and 7 fraud detection benchmarks with corresponding decision rules.

resultsA total of 5862 respondents provided consent and initiated the eligibility screener, of whom 2150 (36.68%) were ineligible for not meeting the inclusion criteria, and 131 (2.23%) completed less than 80% of the survey and were removed from further consideration. Other entries were removed for not passing level 1 fraud deterrent safeguards: duplicate entries with the same IP address (388/5862, 6.62%), same telephone number (69/5862, 1.18%), same email address (114/5862, 1.94%), and same telephone number and email address (17/5862, 0.29%). Of the remaining 2993 entries, 1652 entries were removed for not passing the first 2 items of the level 2 fraud detection benchmarks: screeners and surveys with latitude and longitude coordinates outside of the United States (347/2993, 11.59%) and survey completion time of less than 10 minutes (1305/2993, 43.6%). Of the remaining 1341 entries, 130 (9.69%) passed all 5 of the remaining level 2 data validation benchmarks, and 763 (56.89%) entries were removed due to passing less than 3. An additional 33.4% (423/1341) entries were removed after passing 4 of the 5 remaining validation benchmarks, being contacted to verify survey information, and not providing legitimate contact information or being unable to confirm personal information. The final enrolled sample in this online study consisted of 155 respondents who provided consent, were deemed eligible, and passed fraud deterrence features and fraud detection benchmarks. In this paper, we discuss the lessons learned and provide recommendations for leveraging available features in survey software programs to help deter bots and enhance fraud detection procedures beyond relying on survey software options.

conclusionsEffectively identifying fraudulent responses in online surveys is an ongoing challenge. The data validation approach used in this study establishes a robust protocol for identifying genuine participants, thereby contributing to the removal of false data from study findings. By sharing experiences and implementing thorough fraud deterrence and detection protocols, researchers can maintain data validity and contribute to best practices in web-based research.

Indexed as

Black or African AmericanFraudAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansInternetMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesTexasYoung AdultBlack womendata collectiondata integrityfraud detectionfraud deterrenceHIVonline researchsurveyweb-based research

Identifiers

PMID40073396
PMCPMC11947628

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.