Sharma Pakhi, McPhail Steven M, Kularatna Sanjeewa, Senanayake Sameera, Abell Bridget
Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Digital Health and Informatics Directorate, Metro South Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Jun 12;24(1):724. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11166-x.
The growth in online qualitative research and data collection provides several advantages for health service researchers and participants, including convenience and extended geographic reach. However, these online processes can also present unexpected challenges, including instances of participant fraud or scam behaviour. This study describes an incident of participant fraud identified during online focus group discussions and interviews for a PhD health services research project on paediatric neurodevelopmental care.
We aimed to recruit carers of Australian children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Potential participants were recruited via a publicly available social media advert on Facebook offering $50 AUD compensation. Those who expressed interest via email (n = 254) were sent a pre-interview Qualtrics survey to complete. We identified imposters at an early stage via inconsistencies in their self-reported geographical location and that captured by the survey as well as recognition of suspicious actions before, during and after focus group discussions and interviews.
Interest in participation was unexpectedly high. We determined that all potential participants were likely imposters, posing as multiple individuals and using different IP addresses across Nigeria, Australia, and the United States. In doing so, we were able to characterise several "red flags" for identifying imposter participants, particularly those posing as multiple individuals. These comprise a combination of factors including large volumes and strange timings of email responses, unlikely demographic characteristics, short or vague interviews, a preference for nonvisual participation, fixation on monetary compensation, and inconsistencies in reported geographical location. Additionally, we propose several strategies to combat this issue such as providing proof of location or eligibility during recruitment and data collection, examining email and consent form patterns, and comparing demographic data with regional statistics.
The emergent risk of imposter participants is an important consideration for those seeking to conduct health services research using qualitative approaches in online environments. Methodological design choices intended to improve equity and access for the target population may have an unintended consequence of improving access for fraudulent actors unless appropriate risk mitigation strategies are also employed. Lessons learned from this experience are likely to be valuable for novice health service researchers involved in online focus group discussions and interviews.
在线定性研究和数据收集的发展为卫生服务研究人员和参与者带来了诸多优势,包括便利性和更广泛的地理覆盖范围。然而,这些在线流程也可能带来意想不到的挑战,包括参与者欺诈或诈骗行为的情况。本研究描述了在一个关于儿科神经发育护理的博士卫生服务研究项目的在线焦点小组讨论和访谈中发现的一起参与者欺诈事件。
我们旨在招募澳大利亚患有神经发育障碍儿童的护理人员。通过在脸书上发布的一则公开社交媒体广告招募潜在参与者,该广告提供50澳元的补偿。那些通过电子邮件表示感兴趣的人(n = 254)被发送了一份面试前的Qualtrics调查问卷以完成。我们通过他们自我报告的地理位置与调查问卷所记录的位置不一致,以及在焦点小组讨论和访谈之前、期间和之后识别出的可疑行为,在早期阶段识别出了冒名顶替者。
参与的兴趣出乎意料地高。我们确定所有潜在参与者可能都是冒名顶替者,他们冒充多个人,并在尼日利亚、澳大利亚和美国使用不同的IP地址。通过这样做,我们能够确定几个识别冒名顶替参与者的“红旗标志”,特别是那些冒充多个人的情况。这些包括多种因素的组合,如大量且时间奇怪的电子邮件回复、不太可能的人口统计学特征、简短或模糊的访谈、对非视觉参与的偏好、对金钱补偿的执着以及报告地理位置的不一致。此外,我们提出了几种应对这一问题的策略,例如在招募和数据收集期间提供位置或资格证明、检查电子邮件和同意书模式,以及将人口统计数据与区域统计数据进行比较。
冒名顶替参与者这一新兴风险是那些寻求在在线环境中使用定性方法进行卫生服务研究的人需要重要考虑的因素。旨在改善目标人群公平性和可及性的方法设计选择可能会产生意想不到的后果,即除非也采用适当的风险缓解策略,否则会改善欺诈行为者的可及性。从这次经历中吸取的教训可能对参与在线焦点小组讨论和访谈的新手卫生服务研究人员很有价值。