ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Detecting and Preventing Fraudulent Participation in Qualitative Research: Content Analysis of Two Multisite Studies.
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.
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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.