ArticleDisability and health journal2025
Accessible, not Exploitable: Navigating fraud prevention in disability research.
Article in Disability and health journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "I Don't Trust it, but I Use it": Navigating Trust, Privacy, and Identity in Disabled People's Use of Generative AI.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2026Article
- A culturally tailored virtual intervention for Alzheimer's family caregivers: Addressing practical challenges and future directions.Archives of gerontology and geriatrics plus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Disability-focused research is vital for informing policies and services that address the unique needs of people with disabilities. However, survey fraud poses a growing threat to the integrity of such research. Fraudulent responses, often facilitated by bots or scammers, disproportionately impact studies with small sample sizes, where even minimal distortion can significantly skew findings and misinform policy decisions. Compounding the issue, traditional fraud detection mechanisms, such as CAPTCHA tasks and automated response-time analysis, often exclude legitimate participants, particularly those who rely on assistive technologies or face accessibility barriers. This commentary examines the recruitment paradox inherent in disability research, where inclusive participation incentives inadvertently invite fraud while restrictive measures risk excluding genuine respondents. To address these dual challenges, we propose adaptive fraud detection tools, participatory design approaches, and equitable incentive structures that balance inclusivity with data integrity. These strategies advance robust, representative findings to support effective and equitable policy development.
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.