ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Striking a Balance: Mitigating Fraud While Ensuring Equity in Online Qualitative Research Recruitment.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detecting and Preventing Fraudulent Participation in Qualitative Research: Content Analysis of Two Multisite Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Lessons Learned Identifying and Controlling Fraudulent Participation in Online Randomized Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
After the COVID-19 pandemic, online recruitment became a critical component of qualitative research in health care fields. However, fraudulent participants targeting research incentives have become more prevalent in health studies, raising significant issues for research ethics, data integrity, and the inclusion of diverse patient voices. While qualitative health research aims to listen to and amplify patients' and communities' voices, such fraud can severely impact research quality and foster mistrust toward participants. This issue is particularly critical in qualitative studies, where careful communication, engagement, and mutual trust between researchers and participants are hallmarks of the research process, especially when working with populations considered marginalized. Behaviors that researchers may associate with fraudulent participants also appear in the communication patterns of groups considered marginalized, especially when discussing sensitive topics. This similarity could lead to misplaced suspicion, unintentionally disadvantaging populations considered marginalized when they attempt to share their experiences. In this paper, 3 qualitative nursing researchers reflect on their experiences with recruitment and data collection in recent studies and provide recommendations based on their experiences and a review of relevant literature. These include methods for addressing challenges related to potentially fraudulent participants and balancing ethical approaches with justice and inclusivity while preserving research integrity, drawing on existing strategies from previous studies facing similar issues. The paper also identifies unaddressed areas requiring future attention and highlights the importance of promoting inclusivity for diverse populations and populations considered marginalized who may be disproportionately affected by mistrust in participant integrity.
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.