Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun 4:8:e51530.
doi: 10.2196/51530.

Evaluating the Problem of Fraudulent Participants in Health Care Research: Multimethod Pilot Study

Affiliations

Evaluating the Problem of Fraudulent Participants in Health Care Research: Multimethod Pilot Study

Vithusa Kumarasamy et al. JMIR Form Res. .

Abstract

Background: The shift toward online recruitment methods, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has brought to the forefront the growing concern of encountering fraudulent participants in health care research. The increasing prevalence of this issue poses a serious threat to the reliability and integrity of research data and subsequent findings.

Objective: This study aims to explore the experiences of health care researchers (HCRs) who have encountered fraudulent participants while using online recruitment methods and platforms. The primary objective was to gain insights into how researchers detect and mitigate fraudulent behavior in their work and provide prevention recommendations.

Methods: A multimethod sequential design was used for this pilot study, comprising a quantitative arm involving a web-based survey followed by a qualitative arm featuring semistructured interviews. The qualitative description approach framed the qualitative arm of the study. Sample sizes for the quantitative and qualitative arms were based on pragmatic considerations that in part stemmed from encountering fraudulent participants in a concurrent study. Content analysis was used to analyze open-ended survey questions and interview data.

Results: A total of 37 HCRs participated, with 35% (13/37) of them engaging in qualitative interviews. Online platforms such as Facebook, email, Twitter (subsequently rebranded X), and newsletters were the most used methods for recruitment. A total of 84% (31/37) of participants indicated that fraudulent participation occurred in studies that mentioned incentives in their recruitment communications, with 71% (26/37) of HCRs offering physical or electronic gift cards as incentives. Researchers identified several indicators of suspicious behavior, including email surges, discrepancies in contact or personal information, geographical inconsistencies, and suspicious responses to survey questions. HCRs emphasized the need for a comprehensive screening protocol that extends beyond eligibility checks and is seamlessly integrated into the study protocol, grant applications, and research ethics board submissions.

Conclusions: This study sheds light on the intricate and pervasive problem of fraudulent participation in health care research using online recruitment methods. The findings underscore the importance of vigilance and proactivity among HCRs in identifying, preventing, and addressing fraudulent behavior. To effectively tackle this challenge, researchers are encouraged to develop a comprehensive prevention strategy and establish a community of practice, facilitating real-time access to solutions and support and the promotion of ethical research practices. This collaborative approach will enable researchers to effectively address the issue of fraudulent participation, ensuring the conduct of high-quality and ethically sound research in the digital age.

Keywords: bots; fraudulent participants; health care research; multimethod study; online recruitment; social media; threats to data integrity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Griffin M, Martino RJ, LoSchiavo C, Comer-Carruthers C, Krause KD, Stults CB, Halkitis PN. Ensuring survey research data integrity in the era of internet bots. Qual Quant. 2022 Oct 05;56(4):2841–52. doi: 10.1007/s11135-021-01252-1. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34629553 1252 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pozzar R, Hammer MJ, Underhill-Blazey M, Wright AA, Tulsky JA, Hong F, Gundersen DA, Berry DL. Threats of bots and other bad actors to data quality following research participant recruitment through social media: cross-sectional questionnaire. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 07;22(10):e23021. doi: 10.2196/23021. https://www.jmir.org/2020/10/e23021/ v22i10e23021 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Glazer JV, MacDonnell K, Frederick C, Ingersoll K, Ritterband LM. Liar! Liar! Identifying eligibility fraud by applicants in digital health research. Internet Interv. 2021 Sep;25:100401. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2021.100401. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214-7829(21)00041-5 S2214-7829(21)00041-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bybee S, Cloyes K, Ellington L, Baucom B, Supiano K, Mooney K. Bots and nots: safeguarding online survey research with underrepresented and diverse populations. Psychol Sex. 2022 Jun 07;13(4):901–11. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2021.1936617. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/36439051 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Instagram from Meta. Instagram. [2023-07-30]. https://www.instagram.com/

LinkOut - more resources