Improving data credibility in online recruitment: Signs and strategies for detecting fraudulent participants when using ResearchMatch

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Lauren M. Pageau, Jiying Ling
{"title":"Improving data credibility in online recruitment: Signs and strategies for detecting fraudulent participants when using ResearchMatch","authors":"Lauren M. Pageau,&nbsp;Jiying Ling","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2025.107925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Online recruitment platforms are valuable tools that allow researchers to efficiently reach large pools of potential participants for clinical trials and observational studies. However, challenges associated with fraudulent respondents and bots threaten data credibility. This paper discusses signs we identified for recognizing potentially fraudulent respondents when using one online recruitment tool, ResearchMatch, to recruit study participants.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Participants were recruited via ResearchMatch for a study focused on stress and coping among U.S. young, low-income parents. Participants completed an online survey via Qualtrics. To screen for fraudulent respondents, we compared reports generated from Qualtrics with those from ResearchMatch.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified six signs of fraudulent respondents, including 1) suspicious metadata, 2) fake addresses listed in ResearchMatch profile, 3) a common Western name for both first and last names, 4) inconsistent and duplicate data, 5) extensive list of medications and/or medical conditions, and 6) short survey completion time. We contacted 63,284 accounts through ResearchMatch and received 928 survey responses. About 46 % (<em>n</em> = 425) of responses were deemed fraudulent.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Fraudulent respondents and bots undermine the integrity of data, which may result in adverse implications for research, policy, and patient health. Given that nearly half of the survey respondents in our study were deemed fraudulent, it is evident that this is a significant issue for recruiting research participants via online recruitment platforms. To ensure reliability and accuracy of study findings, it is critical for researchers to thoroughly examine their data for signs of fraudulence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10636,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary clinical trials","volume":"154 ","pages":"Article 107925"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551714425001193","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Online recruitment platforms are valuable tools that allow researchers to efficiently reach large pools of potential participants for clinical trials and observational studies. However, challenges associated with fraudulent respondents and bots threaten data credibility. This paper discusses signs we identified for recognizing potentially fraudulent respondents when using one online recruitment tool, ResearchMatch, to recruit study participants.

Methods

Participants were recruited via ResearchMatch for a study focused on stress and coping among U.S. young, low-income parents. Participants completed an online survey via Qualtrics. To screen for fraudulent respondents, we compared reports generated from Qualtrics with those from ResearchMatch.

Results

We identified six signs of fraudulent respondents, including 1) suspicious metadata, 2) fake addresses listed in ResearchMatch profile, 3) a common Western name for both first and last names, 4) inconsistent and duplicate data, 5) extensive list of medications and/or medical conditions, and 6) short survey completion time. We contacted 63,284 accounts through ResearchMatch and received 928 survey responses. About 46 % (n = 425) of responses were deemed fraudulent.

Conclusions

Fraudulent respondents and bots undermine the integrity of data, which may result in adverse implications for research, policy, and patient health. Given that nearly half of the survey respondents in our study were deemed fraudulent, it is evident that this is a significant issue for recruiting research participants via online recruitment platforms. To ensure reliability and accuracy of study findings, it is critical for researchers to thoroughly examine their data for signs of fraudulence.
提高在线招聘的数据可信度:使用ResearchMatch时检测欺诈参与者的迹象和策略
在线招募平台是有价值的工具,使研究人员能够有效地接触到临床试验和观察性研究的大量潜在参与者。然而,与欺诈性受访者和机器人相关的挑战威胁到数据的可信度。本文讨论了我们在使用在线招聘工具ResearchMatch招募研究参与者时识别潜在欺诈性受访者的迹象。研究人员通过ResearchMatch招募了参与者,对美国年轻低收入父母的压力和应对方式进行了研究。参与者通过Qualtrics完成了一项在线调查。为了筛选欺诈性的受访者,我们将qualics生成的报告与ResearchMatch生成的报告进行了比较。结果我们发现了6种欺诈性调查对象的迹象,包括1)可疑的元数据,2)ResearchMatch个人资料中列出的虚假地址,3)姓氏和名字都是一个常见的西方名字,4)不一致和重复的数据,5)大量的药物和/或医疗条件,以及6)短的调查完成时间。我们通过ResearchMatch联系了63,284个账户,收到了928份调查回复。大约46% (n = 425)的回答被认为是欺诈。欺诈性的受访者和机器人破坏了数据的完整性,这可能对研究、政策和患者健康产生不利影响。考虑到我们研究中近一半的调查对象被认为是欺诈行为,很明显,这是通过在线招聘平台招聘研究参与者的一个重要问题。为了确保研究结果的可靠性和准确性,研究人员彻底检查他们的数据以寻找欺诈的迹象是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
281
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from disciplines including medicine, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioural science, pharmaceutical science, and bioethics. Full-length papers and short communications not exceeding 1,500 words, as well as systemic reviews of clinical trials and methodologies will be published. Perspectives/commentaries on current issues and the impact of clinical trials on the practice of medicine and health policy are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信