Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41324984›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2025

Exploring Methods to Mitigate Fraud in Web-Based Surveys: Multicase Study Analysis.

Madeleine Ennis, Regina-Maria Renner, Claudia Morando-Stokoe, Sharon James, Patricia A Janssen, Sara Leckie, Sheila Dunn, Danielle Mazza, Wendy V Norman

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT05793944 (Teaching by Texting to Promote Health Behaviours in Pregnancy), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05793944 narecruitingnot on this map

Teaching by Texting to Promote Health Behaviours in Pregnancy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2023 to 2027Enrolled3,078ConditionsPregnancyArmsSmartMom text messaging, Control text messaging
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Madeleine Ennis *Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1263-2676
Regina-Maria Renner *Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7988-0877
Claudia Morando-StokoeSPHERE Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health in Primary Care, Department of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4368-1390
Sharon JamesSPHERE Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health in Primary Care, Department of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2211-3447
Patricia A JanssenSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4178-1195
Sara LeckieSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8251-3034
Sheila DunnDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2284-1364
Danielle MazzaSPHERE Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health in Primary Care, Department of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6158-7376
Wendy V NormanDepartment of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4340-7882

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based surveys are a cost-effective technique to engage a large population of participants in research projects, including those who were previously difficult to reach due to geographic location, safety, and vulnerability. While web-based surveys have many advantages, they can be more susceptible to fraud, especially when a generic invitation link or a financial incentive is offered. There is a paucity of literature presenting experiences for mitigating this type of fraudulent study response, yet this important foundation is needed to inform the work of researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) to support the collection of high-quality, appropriate data.

objectiveThis study aims to analyze, compare, and contrast the range of strategies used to prevent, detect, and remove fraudulent responses by investigating 4 web-based surveys in Australia and Canada, each of which experienced fraudulent responses.

methodsOur descriptive multiple case study presents 4 research projects from Australia and Canada that experienced survey fraud. These web-based surveys recruited patients of, or clinicians providing, family planning services. We describe each study's approach to preventing fraud (primary prevention; eg, CAPTCHA) and a screening protocol to detect fraudulent responses during data collection (secondary prevention). Once fraud was detected, each study team developed strategies to protect data integrity, in consultation with coinvestigators, ethics committees/ IRBs, and biostatisticians, to remove fraudulent respondents from the dataset (tertiary prevention).

resultsAll studies recruited via a generic survey link and provided remuneration, which are common risk factors for fraud. Several studies also relied on social media for recruitment. All 4 studies implemented tertiary fraud detection strategies to identify and remove fraudulent responses and maintain data integrity (removing between 16% and 45% of respondents). Including personal identifiers during data collection provided 3 of the studies with a more robust option to identify and remove fraudulent respondents. Where personal identifiers could not be used (eg, to protect the identity of a vulnerable study population), investigators relied on a complex fraud detection algorithm verified by manual team review.

conclusionsCommonly used web-based anonymized survey methods, particularly those offering incentives for participation, are at substantial risk for fraud. Across these 4 studies, robust fraud detection methods were essential to ensure data reliability, with varying strategies, such as using personal identifiers, applied based on specific survey contexts. Fraud mitigation criteria explored in this multicase analysis can be adapted to other web-based surveys, survey topics, and populations. Implementing the fraud prevention and detection methods within survey design will assist researchers and IRBs in protecting data integrity.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12622000655741; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=383919 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05793944; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05793944.

Indexed as

FraudInternetAustraliaCanadaHumansSurveys and Questionnairesabortiondata collectionfraudlong-acting reversible contraceptionmethodspregnancyreimbursement incentivesurveys and questionnaireswomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID41324984
PMCPMC12706441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.