JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Remote recruitment for human subjects research is increasingly popular due to its speed, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility for participants. However, in some cases it can be particularly difficult to authenticate participants recruited remotely which, unless adequately addressed, may pose a threat to data integrity and validity.

Objective:

In this paper, we outline authenticity concerns encountered via remote recruitment for a longitudinal cohort study of adults reporting polysubstance use. Stemming from these concerns, we describe development of a novel system of participant authenticity checks, designed with the goal of maximizing data integrity and minimizing the introduction of additional barriers to participating in the research. Finally, we examine rates of passing each active authenticity check among participants recruited via web-based advertisements.

Methods:

Participants were recruited through one of several modalities, including via electronic health records (EHR) and via a third-party company managing a web-based advertising campaign. All participants enrolled in the longitudinal study completed a screening survey followed by a baseline assessment (involving a survey and an interview) before completing up to 4 weekly interviews and follow-up assessments at 4-, 8-, and 12-months after baseline. The authenticity check system described here was implemented for all participants recruited via web-based advertising. In addition to passive authenticity checks (i.e., randomized online survey passwords), we describe a five-step active authentication protocol: 1) reviewing interest forms for duplication (Interest Form Duplication Review); 2) an attention check at screening (Attention Check); 3) reviewing personal information post-screening for duplicates or inconsistencies (Personal Information Verification); 4) a verbal identity confirmation at baseline (Verbal Identity Confirmation); and 5) a review of participant responses for inconsistent reporting at baseline (Consistent Reporting Review).

Results:

In total, 178 (6.58%) of the 2,598 active authenticity checks administered were failed, leading to the exclusion of 119 unique potential participants due to fraudulent, inconsistent, or ineligible submissions. The 119 unique exclusions represented 11.13% of the 1,069 potential participants identified via web-based advertising. Reviewing personal information provided at screening for inconsistencies (Personal Information Verification) accounted for the largest number of failed checks (n = 100), whereas reviewing interest form entries for duplicate personal information (Interest Form Duplication Review) yielded the fewest failures (n = 7).

Conclusions:

The system presented provides an example of how researchers may increase confidence in the authenticity of participants recruited remotely, while avoiding the introduction of potential barriers to participating in research such as requiring photo ID, online video call verification, or in-person verification. Such additional requirements for participants may systematically bias samples, especially when conducting research with historically marginalized populations or those with stigmatized health conditions or behaviors.