ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Preventing and mitigating fraudulent research participants in online qualitative violence and injury prevention research.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecruiting participants for injury and violence-related studies can be challenging, and online data collection opportunities can expand reach, offer convenience and extend a sense of safety to potential participants who may be in unsafe situations or do not want to travel to a location due to safety concerns. While increasing accessibility for some participants, online primary data collection presents challenges around potential fraudulent participants. This methodological paper highlights the strategies for preventing and mitigating fraudulent participants in online qualitative data collection, using a recent firearm violence study in a Northeast city as an example. PURPOSE: Using a recent data collection effort related to firearm injury as a case study, the purpose of the current methodology paper is to highlight concerns and challenges with online qualitative data collection and provide strategies for preventing, detecting and removing fraudulent participants in qualitative injury and violence prevention research.
resultsVarious predata collection activities can promote a study design that deters fraudulent participants, and additional 'in-the-moment' data collection activities can flag potential suspicious participants. Strategies include prescreening participants, requiring video and answers to basic questions relevant to the study topic and confirming certain pieces of information.
conclusionOnline primary data collection can increase accessibility and support the safety of participants in injury and violence research, and there are considerations around detecting and removing fraudulent participants that researchers should note. Like all methods, a balance exists between study access, aims and resources. Researchers new to online qualitative data collection can use the strategies outlined here.
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.