Fraudulent Participation in Online Qualitative Studies: Practical Recommendations on an Emerging Phenomenon.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Qualitative Health Research Pub Date : 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1177/10497323241288181
Khaylen Mistry, Sophie Merrick, Melissa Cabecinha, Susanna Daniels, John Ragan, Miran Epstein, Louisa Lever, Zoe C Venables, Nick J Levell
{"title":"Fraudulent Participation in Online Qualitative Studies: Practical Recommendations on an Emerging Phenomenon.","authors":"Khaylen Mistry, Sophie Merrick, Melissa Cabecinha, Susanna Daniels, John Ragan, Miran Epstein, Louisa Lever, Zoe C Venables, Nick J Levell","doi":"10.1177/10497323241288181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fraudulent participation is defined in the following as participation in research by individuals who, for one reason or another, intentionally provide false responses. Qualitative studies are at an increased risk of fraudulent participation when online recruitment and participation are used, and monetary incentives offered. Fraudulent participation threatens data quality and subsequent evidence-based practice, yet validated guidance on how to tackle it is lacking. This paper offers a critical reflection thereon by three separate qualitative research groups that experienced fraudulent participation in collaboration with a patient representative, a bioethicist, a legal expert, a journal deputy editor, and a chief executive of a national charity. The Prevent FRaudulent Online STudy participation (P-FROST) recommendations provide advice on (1) Study set-up (including team members and study design), (2) Monetary incentives and recruitment, (3) Data collection (screening and interview considerations), and (4) Analysis, reporting, and support. The reflection which balances the diverse perspectives of patients, researchers, funders, ethics boards, and legal teams puts forward the P-FROST recommendations to identify and prevent fraudulent participation throughout the design, ethical approval, and implementation of online qualitative research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":" ","pages":"10497323241288181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241288181","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fraudulent participation is defined in the following as participation in research by individuals who, for one reason or another, intentionally provide false responses. Qualitative studies are at an increased risk of fraudulent participation when online recruitment and participation are used, and monetary incentives offered. Fraudulent participation threatens data quality and subsequent evidence-based practice, yet validated guidance on how to tackle it is lacking. This paper offers a critical reflection thereon by three separate qualitative research groups that experienced fraudulent participation in collaboration with a patient representative, a bioethicist, a legal expert, a journal deputy editor, and a chief executive of a national charity. The Prevent FRaudulent Online STudy participation (P-FROST) recommendations provide advice on (1) Study set-up (including team members and study design), (2) Monetary incentives and recruitment, (3) Data collection (screening and interview considerations), and (4) Analysis, reporting, and support. The reflection which balances the diverse perspectives of patients, researchers, funders, ethics boards, and legal teams puts forward the P-FROST recommendations to identify and prevent fraudulent participation throughout the design, ethical approval, and implementation of online qualitative research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在线定性研究中的欺诈性参与:关于新出现现象的实用建议》。
下文将欺诈性参与定义为出于某种原因故意提供虚假回答的个人参与研究。当采用在线招募和参与方式并提供金钱奖励时,定性研究中出现欺诈性参与的风险就会增加。欺诈性参与威胁着数据质量和随后的循证实践,但却缺乏有效的指导来解决这一问题。本文由三个经历过欺诈性参与的独立定性研究小组与一名患者代表、一名生物伦理学家、一名法律专家、一名期刊副主编和一名全国性慈善机构的首席执行官合作,对此进行了批判性反思。防止欺诈性在线参与研究(P-FROST)建议提供了以下方面的建议:(1) 研究设置(包括团队成员和研究设计);(2) 金钱激励和招募;(3) 数据收集(筛选和访谈注意事项);(4) 分析、报告和支持。该反思平衡了患者、研究人员、资助者、伦理委员会和法律团队的不同观点,提出了 P-FROST 建议,以便在在线定性研究的整个设计、伦理审批和实施过程中识别和防止欺诈性参与。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
期刊最新文献
From Promise to Practice: How Health Researchers Understand and Promote Transdisciplinary Collaboration. The Changing Care of Older Adults With Bipolar Disorder: A Narrative Analysis. Age Melancholy of Older Mizrahi Women Residing in Tel Aviv as a Social Loss: Exploring Intersections of Health and Social Support in an Ethnographic Study. The Emotional Aftermath of Surviving an Attempted Intimate Partner Homicide. Understanding the Experiences and Support Needs of Close Relatives in Psychiatric Euthanasia Trajectories: A Qualitative Exploration.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1