ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Preventing fraudulent research participation: Methodological strategies and ethical impacts.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introduction to the Special Issue on Research Methods in Genetic Counseling: Diverse Methods, Shared Purpose.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Detecting and Preventing Fraudulent Participation in Qualitative Research: Content Analysis of Two Multisite Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Cultivating Authentic Partnership: Cooperative Development of a Toolkit to Mitigate Group Harm in Biorepository-Enabled Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A culturally tailored virtual intervention for Alzheimer's family caregivers: Addressing practical challenges and future directions.Archives of gerontology and geriatrics plus · 2026Article
- Article
- Preventing fraudulent research participation: Methodological strategies and ethical impacts.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article addresses a growing issue in genetic counseling research: the participation of individuals who falsify demographic information or experiences to qualify for studies, often motivated by remuneration. This issue is particularly pressing in studies using social media recruitment, where detecting fraudulent participants has become increasingly difficult. The prevalence of inaccurate data raises serious questions about the integrity, reliability, and validity of research findings. We explore potential sources of participant fraud and inconsistency informed by prior, direct experience with fraudulent participants, discussing various strategies to strengthen participant screening, data validation, and interview protocols. We also examine the challenges screening methods pose for marginalized communities, who may already harbor distrust in research or face privacy concerns. We emphasize the need for transparent, responsible approaches to participant verification and advocate for developing standardized guidelines to protect both research quality and participant rights. By promoting trust, inclusivity, and fairness in research practices, we aim to preserve the dignity of participants and ensure that genetic counseling research remains rigorous. Ultimately, we call for collective action to reinforce the integrity of research and enhance its impact on clinical practice, ensuring that evidence-based insights guide patient-centered care.
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.