Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-lm65w Total loading time: 0.006 Render date: 2025-07-23T23:54:39.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impostor Syndrome: Fraudulent Participants in Qualitative Research Can Skew Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2025

Leah Z. Rand Open the ORCID record for Leah Z. Rand [Opens in a new window] ,
Sarah McGraw ,
Junyi Wang ,
Jonathan J. Darrow  and
Aaron S. Kesselheim
Leah Z. Rand
Affiliation:
https://ror.org/04b6nzv94Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
Sarah McGraw
Affiliation:
MNW Consulting Group, Portland, OR, United States
Junyi Wang
Affiliation:
https://ror.org/04b6nzv94Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
Jonathan J. Darrow
Affiliation:
https://ror.org/04b6nzv94Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
Aaron S. Kesselheim*
Affiliation:
https://ror.org/04b6nzv94Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
*
Corresponding author: Aaron S. Kesselheim; Email: akesselheim@bwh.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report on an experience with impostor research participants, people who misrepresent themselves, and identify characteristics that can be used by investigators to screen out such participants. We compare the responses of impostor and valid participants, showing that impostors meaningfully change qualitative study findings with implications for policy interventions or follow-on research informed by the study. It is important for investigators to be alert to the potential for impostor participants and plan their research accordingly.

Keywords

qualitative researchfocus groupfraudulent participantsimpostor participantsresearch subject recruitmentstudy eligibility

Information

Type
Columns: Health Policy Portal
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , First View , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

About This Column: Aaron Kesselheim serves as the editor for Health Policy Portal. Dr. Kesselheim is the JLME editor-in-chief and director of the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School. This column features timely analyses and perspectives on issues at the intersection of medicine, law, and health policy that are directly relevant to patient care. If you would like to submit to this section of JLME, please contact Dr. Kesselheim at akesselheim@bwh.harvard.edu.

References

Pope, C. and Mays, N.. “Qualitative Research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research.” BMJ 311, no. 6996 (1995): 42, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6996.42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glazer, J.V., MacDonnell, K., Frederick, C., Ingersoll, K., and Ritterband, L.M.. “Liar! Liar! Identifying eligibility fraud by applicants in digital health research,” Internet Interventions 25 (2021): 100401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2021.100401; S/ Quach, et al. “The good, bad, and ugly of online recruitment of parents for health-related focus groups: lessons learned,” Journal of Medical Internet Research 15, no. 11 (2013): e250, https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2829; Sharpe Wessling, K., J. Huber, O. Netzer, et al. “MTurk Character Misrepresentation: Assessment and Solutions,” Journal of Consumer Research 44, no. 1 (2017): 211–30, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowen, A.M., Daniel, C. M., Williams, M. L., and Baird, G. L., “Identifying Multiple Submissions in Internet Research: Preserving Data Integrity,” AIDS and Behavior 12, no. 6 (2008): 964–73, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-007-9352-2; H. Fernandez Lynch et al., “Association Between Financial Incentives and Participant Deception About Study Eligibility.” JAMA Netw Open 2, no. 1 (2019): e187355, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballard, A.M., Cardwell, T., and Young, A.M.. “Fraud Detection Protocol for Web-Based Research Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Development and Descriptive Evaluation.” JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 5, no. 1 (2019): e12344; C. Hydock, “Assessing and overcoming participant dishonesty in online data collection,” Behavior Research Methods 50, no. 4 (2018): 1563-67, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0984-5; A. Jones, L. Caes, T. Rugg, M. Noel, S. Bateman, and A. Jordan, “Challenging issues of integrity and identity of participants in non-synchronous online qualitative methods,” Methods in Psychology 5 (2021); D. Ridge et al., “’Imposter participants’ in online qualitative research, a new and increasing threat to data integrity?,” Health Expectations 26, no. 3 (2023): 941–44; P. Sharma et al., “Navigating the challenges of imposter participants in online qualitative research: lessons learned from a paediatric health services study,” BMC Health Services Research 24, no. 1 (2024): 724; A. Santinele Martino, A. Perrotta, and B. J. McGillion, “Who can you trust these days?: Dealing with imposter participants during online recruitment and data collection,” Qualitative Research 24, no. 5 (2024): 1291-301; K. Mistry, S. Merrick, M. Cabecinha, et al., “Fraudulent Participation in Online Qualitative Studies: Practical Recommendations on an Emerging Phenomenon,” Qualitative Health Research (2024): 10497323241288181; see Glazer, supra note 2; see Quach, supra note 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marques, I.C. Dos Santos, Theiss, L.M., Johnson, C.Y., et al., “Implementation of virtual focus groups for qualitative data collection in a global pandemic,” American Journal of Surgery 221, no. 5 (2021): 918–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.10.009; L. Santhosh, J.C. Rojas, and P. G. Lyons, “Zooming into Focus Groups: Strategies for Qualitative Research in the Era of Social Distancing,” ATS Sch 2, no. 2 (2021): 176–84, https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0127PS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, N., Satherley, R. M., Davey, E., and Bryan, G., “Fraudulent participants in qualitative child health research: identifying and reducing bot activity,” Archives of Disease in Childhood 108, no. 5 (2023): 415–16; J. Roehl and D. Harland, “Imposter Participants: Overcoming Methodological Challenges Related to Balancing Participant Privacy with Data Quality When Using Online Recruitment and Data Collection.” Qualitative Report (2022); see Ballard, supra note 4; Glazer, supra note 2; Sharma, supra note 4.10.1136/archdischild-2022-325049CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Mistry, supra note 4; see Ridge, supra note 4; see Roehl, supra note 5; see Santinele Martino, supra note 4; see Sharma, supra note 4.Google Scholar
See O’Donnell, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Harris, P.A., Taylor, R., Minor, B.L., et al., “The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics 95 (2019): 103208, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208; P.A. Harris, et al., “Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics 42, no. 2 (2009): 377–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ResearchMatch, https://www.researchmatch.org/; “Rally with Mass General Brigham,” Mass General Brigham, https://rally.massgeneralbrigham.org/.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V., “Thematic analysis,” in APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological, ed. H.Cooper et al., (American Psychological Association, 2012), https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004; C.H. Saunders et al. “Practical thematic analysis: a guide for multidisciplinary health services research teams engaging in qualitative analysis,” BMJ 381 (2023): e074256, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-074256.Google Scholar
Rand, L.Z.G., McGraw, S., Wang, J., et al., “Patient perspectives on evidence supporting drug safety and effectiveness: ‘What does it mean for me?’,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (2024), https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. See Mistry, supra note 4.Google Scholar
See O’Donnell, supra note 6; see Mistry, supra note 4; see Ridge, supra note 4.Google Scholar
See O’Donnell, supra note 6; see Mistry, supra note 4; see Ridge, supra note 4.Google Scholar
See Glazer, supra note 2; see Santinele Martino, supra note 4; see Mistry, supra note 4.Google Scholar
Bytzer, P. et al. “Analysis of upper gastrointestinal adverse events among patients given dabigatran in the RE-LY trial,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 11, no. 3 (2013): 246–52 e1-5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2012.10.021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Glazer, supra note 2; see Roehl, supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Mistry, supra note 4; see Santinele Martino, supra note 4.Google Scholar
DeFrank, J.T. et al., “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs and the Patient-Prescriber Encounter: A Systematic Review,” Health Communication 35, no. 6 (2020): 739–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1584781; M.D. Eisenberg, Y. Singh, and N. Sood, “Association of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs With Consumer Health-Related Intentions and Beliefs Among Individuals at Risk of Cardiovascular Disease,” JAMA Health Forum 3, no. 8 (2022): e222570, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed