Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40316881›Full record

ArticleThe patient2025

Identifying and Managing Fraudulent Respondents in Online Stated Preferences Surveys: A Case Example from Best-Worst Scaling in Health Preferences Research.

Karen V MacDonald, Geoffrey C Nguyen, Maida J Sewitch, Deborah A Marshall

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Karen V MacDonaldDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Room 3C58, Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC), 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Geoffrey C NguyenMount Sinai Hospital Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Maida J SewitchCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Deborah A MarshallDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Room 3C58, Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC), 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada. damarsha@ucalgary.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-8467-8008

Funding

Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) 1715-000-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence and guidance in health preferences research to prevent, identify, and manage fraudulent respondents and data fraud, especially for best-worst scaling (BWS) and discrete choice experiments with nonordered attributes. Using an example from a BWS survey in which we experienced data fraud, we aimed to: (1) develop an approach to identify, verify, and categorize fraudulent respondents; (2) assess the impact of fraudulent respondents on data and results; and (3) identify variables associated with fraudulent respondents.

methodsAn online BWS survey on healthcare services for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was administered to Canadian IBD patients. We used a three-step approach to identify, verify, and categorize respondents as likely fraudulent (LF), likely real (LR), and unsure. First, responses to 12 "red flag" variables (variables identified as indicators of fraud) were coded 0 (pass) or 1 (fail) then summed to generate a "fraudulent response score" (FRS; range: 0-12 (most likely fraudulent)) used to categorize respondents. Second, respondents categorized LR or unsure underwent age verification. Third, categorization was updated on the basis of age verification results. BWS data were analyzed using conditional logit and latent class analysis. Subgroup analysis was done by final categorization, FRS, and red flag variables.

resultsOverall, n = 4334 respondents underwent initial categorization resulting in 24% (n = 1019) LF and 76% (n = 3315) needing further review. After review, 75% (n = 3258) were categorized as LF and n = 484 underwent age verification. Respondent categorization was updated on the basis of age verification, with final categorization of 76% (n = 3297) LF, 14% (n = 592) unsure, 10% (n = 442) LR, and < 1% (n = 3) duplicates of LR. BWS item rankings differed most by respondent category. Latent class analysis demonstrated final categorization was significantly associated with class membership; class 1 had characteristics consistent with LR respondents and item ranking order for class 1 closely aligned with LR respondent conditional logit results. Suspicious email was the most frequently failed red flag variable and was associated with fraudulent respondents.

conclusionsAdditional steps to review data and verify age resulted in better categorization than only FRS or single red flag variables. Email authentication, single use/unique survey links, and built-in identification verification may be most effective for fraud prevention. Guidance is needed on good research practices for most effective and efficient approaches for preventing, identifying, and managing fraudulent data in health preferences research, specifically in studies with nonordered attributes.

Indexed as

FraudPatient PreferenceAdultAgedCanadaFemaleHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesInternetMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.