Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42398058›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Detecting and Preventing Fraudulent Participation in Qualitative Research: Content Analysis of Two Multisite Studies.

Destiny Harden, Nicolette Rodriguez, Kristi Roybal, Tara Coffin, Gina Johnson, Kelley Le Beaux, Maria Connolly, Jennifer Rountree, Chinedu Ukaegbu, Anna C Revette and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

21 authors.

Destiny HardenClinical Translational and Epidemiology Unit, Mongan Insitute, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA, 02114, United States, 1 617 724 9516.ORCID 0000-0003-3463-5429
Nicolette RodriguezDivision of Gastroenterology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5685-0667
Kristi RoybalHealth Research Accelerator, Providence Research Network, Renton, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1274-5240
Tara CoffinWIRB-Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board, Cary, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1446-5792
Gina JohnsonHealth Promotion and Disease Department, Great Plains Tribal Health, Rapid City, SD, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-2287-4988
Kelley Le BeauxHealth Promotion and Disease Department, Great Plains Tribal Health, Rapid City, SD, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-0403-7513
Maria ConnollyHealth Research Accelerator, Providence Research Network, Renton, WA, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-8076-7980
Jennifer RountreeHealth Research Accelerator, Providence Research Network, Renton, WA, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-6819-542X
Chinedu UkaegbuDivision of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1629-2824
Anna C RevetteSurvey and Qualitative Methods Core, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4590-755X
Brett Nava-CoulterSurvey and Qualitative Methods Core, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0009-0001-6341-5137
Alyson CarusoDivision of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-7093-5495
Jane RobertsSurvey and Qualitative Methods Core, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0009-0001-8834-2392
Suzanne BrodneyDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4405-0726
Kimberly SchoolcraftResearch Advocacy Training and Support Program, Fight Colorectal Cancer, Springfield, MO, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-3495-9378
Sapna SyngalDivision of Gastroenterology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5487-7471
David A DrewDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8813-0816
Folasade P MayVatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6706-8171
Jennifer S HaasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7227-851X
Staci J WendtHealth Research Accelerator, Providence Research Network, Renton, WA, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-9090-4192
Erica T WarnerClinical Translational and Epidemiology Unit, Mongan Insitute, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA, 02114, United States, 1 617 724 9516.ORCID 0000-0002-2671-0313

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The use of web-based approaches to identify, recruit, enroll, survey, and interview health-related research participants has increased over time, with rapid acceleration since the COVID-19 pandemic. These approaches can make research more accessible to a broader population, but also increase the risk of fraudulent or imposter participants infiltrating research studies. While this threat has been discussed extensively in quantitative survey research, less has been reported in qualitative and mixed methods studies. Objective: This study aims to identify recurring patterns of fraudulent study participation and to offer strategies for identification, remediation, and reporting. Methods: Encounters with fraudulent or imposter individuals during recruitment, enrollment, survey distribution, data collection, and focus group sessions in 2 multisite qualitative and mixed methods research studies are presented. Content from both studies was analyzed to identify common themes and develop strategies for prevention and remediation. Results: Investigators across 2 multisite studies observed several indicators of suspected fraudulent activity, including large response volumes over a short period, highly repetitive email addresses, higher-than-expected proportions of phone numbers with area codes outside the study area, and unusual email/phone responses using atypical language and phrasing. Several imposter or fraudulent individuals disrupted online focus group sessions. To mitigate these issues, both studies implemented remediation strategies, including enhanced screening procedures at baseline, cross-checking of survey responses, and additional identity verification methods prior to participation. Studies took various actions to address these experiences, including notifying the institutional review board, recruitment platforms, and funders. Conclusions: This multisite study identified multiple ways that imposter or fraudulent participants can pose a significant and evolving threat to the integrity of qualitative and mixed methods. These types of fraudulent actors can distort data and undermine research credibility. Lessons learned highlight the importance of real-time recruitment and enrollment analysis and the need for transparent reporting. Addressing this issue will require a comprehensive approach to prevent and address fraudulent study participation that includes collaboration with multiple stakeholders and the broader research community to effectively address this issue.

Indexed as

FraudQualitative ResearchCOVID-19Focus GroupsHumansInternetPandemicsPatient SelectionSARS-CoV-2Surveys and Questionnairesbotsdata accuracydigital healthfraud preventionfraudulent participantsimpostersinternetonline recruitmentqualitative researchsocial media

Identifiers

PMID42398058
PMCPMC13331394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.