Comachio Josielli, Poulsen Adam, Bamgboje-Ayodele Adeola, Tan Aidan, Ayre Julie, Raeside Rebecca, Roy Rajshri, O'Hagan Edel
Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Brain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025 May 20;30(3):173-182. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113170.
This study aimed to describe how health researchers identify and counteract fraudulent responses when recruiting participants online.
Scoping review.
Peer-reviewed studies published in English; studies that report on the online recruitment of participants for health research; and studies that specifically describe methodologies or strategies to detect and address fraudulent responses during the online recruitment of research participants.
Nine databases, including Medline, Informit, AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, IEEE Xplore, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched from inception to April 2024.
Two authors independently screened and selected each study and performed data extraction, following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological guidance for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A predefined framework guided the evaluation of fraud identification and mitigation strategies within the studies included. This framework, adapted from a participatory mapping study that identified indicators of fraudulent survey responses, allowed for systematic assessment and comparison of the effectiveness of various antifraud strategies across studies.
23 studies were included. 18 studies (78%) reported encountering fraudulent responses. Among the studies reviewed, the proportion of participants excluded for fraudulent or suspicious responses ranged from as low as 3% to as high as 94%. Survey completion time was used in six studies (26%) to identify fraud, with completion times under 5 min flagged as suspicious. 12 studies (52%) focused on non-confirming responses, identifying implausible text patterns through specific questions, consistency checks and open-ended questions. Four studies examined temporal events, such as unusual survey completion times. Seven studies (30%) reported on geographical incongruity, using IP address verification and location screening. Incentives were reported in 17 studies (73%), with higher incentives often increasing fraudulent responses. Mitigation strategies included using in-built survey features like Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (34%), manual verification (21%) and video checks (8%). Most studies recommended multiple detection methods to maintain data integrity.
There is insufficient evaluation of strategies to mitigate fraud in online health research, which hinders the ability to offer evidence-based guidance to researchers on their effectiveness. Researchers should employ a combination of strategies to counteract fraudulent responses when recruiting online to optimise data integrity.
本研究旨在描述健康研究人员在网上招募参与者时如何识别和应对欺诈性回复。
范围综述。
以英文发表的同行评审研究;报告健康研究在线招募参与者情况的研究;以及具体描述在研究参与者在线招募过程中检测和处理欺诈性回复的方法或策略的研究。
检索了9个数据库,包括Medline、Informit、AMED、CINAHL、Embase、Cochrane CENTRAL、IEEE Xplore、Scopus和Web of Science,检索时间从建库至2024年4月。
两名作者按照乔安娜·布里格斯研究所范围综述的方法学指南以及范围综述的系统评价和Meta分析扩展的首选报告项目指南,独立筛选和选择每项研究并进行数据提取。一个预定义的框架指导对纳入研究中的欺诈识别和缓解策略进行评估。该框架改编自一项参与式绘图研究,该研究确定了欺诈性调查回复的指标,从而能够对各项研究中各种反欺诈策略的有效性进行系统评估和比较。
纳入23项研究。18项研究(78%)报告遇到过欺诈性回复。在所审查的研究中,因欺诈或可疑回复而被排除的参与者比例低至3%,高至94%。6项研究(26%)使用调查完成时间来识别欺诈,完成时间在5分钟以内的被标记为可疑。12项研究(52%)关注不一致的回复,通过特定问题、一致性检查和开放式问题识别不合理的文本模式。4项研究考察了时间事件,如异常的调查完成时间。7项研究(30%)报告了地理不一致情况,使用IP地址验证和位置筛选。17项研究(73%)报告了激励措施,较高的激励措施往往会增加欺诈性回复。缓解策略包括使用内置调查功能,如全自动区分计算机和人类的图灵测试(34%)、人工验证(2