ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Improving Data Integrity in Samples Obtained From Web-Based Recruitment: Protocol for the Development of a Novel System for Assessing Participant Authenticity in a Remote Longitudinal Cohort Study of Polysubstance Use.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 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.
- Exploring risk tolerance among individuals who use opioids.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Preferences and predictors driving opioid-involved polysubstance use profiles and trajectories: a prospective cohort study protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRemote recruitment for human participant research is increasingly popular due to its speed, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility for participants. However, in some cases, it can be particularly difficult to authenticate participants recruited remotely, which, unless adequately addressed, may pose a threat to data integrity and validity.
objectiveThis protocol aims to outline authenticity concerns encountered via remote recruitment for a longitudinal cohort study of adults reporting polysubstance use. Stemming from these concerns, we describe the development of a novel system of participant authenticity checks, designed with the goal of maximizing data integrity and minimizing the introduction of additional barriers to participating in the research. Finally, we examine rates of passing each active authenticity check among participants recruited via web-based advertisements.
methodsParticipants were recruited through one of several modalities, including via electronic health records and a third-party company managing a web-based advertising campaign. All participants enrolled in the longitudinal study completed a screening survey, followed by a baseline assessment (involving a survey and an interview) before completing up to 4 weekly interviews and follow-up assessments at 4, 8, and 12 months after baseline. The authenticity check system described here was implemented for all participants recruited via web-based advertising. In addition to passive authenticity checks (ie, randomized online survey passwords), we describe a five-step active authentication protocol: (1) reviewing interest forms for duplication (interest form duplication review), (2) an attention check at screening (attention check), (3) reviewing personal information after completion of the screening survey for duplicates or inconsistencies (personal information verification), (4) a verbal identity confirmation at baseline (verbal identity confirmation), and (5) a review of participant responses for inconsistent reporting at baseline (consistent reporting review).
resultsIn total, 178 (6.85%) of the 2598 active authenticity checks administered were failed, leading to the exclusion of 119 unique potential participants due to fraudulent, inconsistent, or ineligible submissions. The 119 unique exclusions represented 11.13% (119/1069) of the potential participants identified via web-based advertising. Reviewing personal information provided at screening for inconsistencies (personal information verification) accounted for the largest number of failed checks (100/178, 56.2%), whereas reviewing interest form entries for duplicate personal information (interest form duplication review) yielded the fewest failures (7/178, 3.9%).
conclusionsThe system presented provides an example of how researchers may increase confidence in the authenticity of participants recruited remotely, while avoiding the introduction of potential barriers to participating in research, such as requiring photo ID, online video call verification, or in-person verification. Such additional requirements for participants may systematically bias samples, especially when conducting research with populations that have been historically marginalized or those with stigmatized health conditions or behaviors. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/69956.
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.