Blog: Challenges of ‘Imposter participants’ in patient and public involvement, 2025, Saunders, Kingstone and Chew-Graham

[Andy]

"The term “imposter participants” has been proposed to characterise individuals who, for the purpose of participating in research, provide false identities and experiences [1-4]. The term ‘Inauthentic participants’ is a broader term which describes individuals or technologies that engage in fraudulent or disingenuous practices to participate in research and includes ’bots’ which complete automated tasks [5].

Emerging literature has focused on recruitment for predominantly qualitative studies involving online interviews, particularly when reimbursement is offered for participation. Some authors have characterised “red flags” for identifying ‘imposter participants’ who are offering to participate in an online research study, particularly those posing as multiple individuals. These include a combination of factors including large volumes and strange timings of email responses and unlikely demographic characteristics, and request for reimbursement, at the time of recruitment. When an interview or focus group is conducted a preference for non-visual participation, short or vague responses, fixation on monetary compensation, and inconsistencies in reported demographics and personal characteristics [6].

A number of strategies have been proposed to combat this problem 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 [6]. The researcher is faced with a dilemma when data has been generated which may have been contributed by a suspected imposter participant [7]. How has the researcher judged that the participant is inauthentic? What should be done with these data – should the data be included in the analysis or not? If the data are not used and the participant was not an ‘imposter’, what ethical concerns are raised? This is a threat to data integrity.

These discussions are ongoing in research teams conducting research which involves online participation of people with lived experience of illness, and teams are aware of the challenge. Less well described is the phenomenon of ‘imposter participants’ in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities. We report the work generated for a researcher aiming to recruit people with lived experience of Long Covid to an online PPIE meeting."

Full article

 

[Hutan]

Unless I've misunderstood something, there's nothing much in the blog. It's mostly just an account of advertising for participants for a Long Covid meeting online (including a promise of payment) and getting swamped with applications, most of which were judged to be false.

So, following Katie’s experience, what is our advice to research teams recruiting people with lived experience to online PPI meetings?

• Use a registration form such as MS teams, rather than an individual’s email address, and ask for some demographic details on this form – and with a puzzle that demands a human to demonstrate ‘you are not a robot’.
• Consider whether (or not) to mention reimbursement on the initial advertisement for the meeting.
• Avoid use of social media to advertise PPI meetings – stick to known networks and links.
• Share the work out – so that sorting through registrations does not fall to one person.

Of course, 'sticking to known networks and links' poses problems too, especially if you are deeply stuck in BPS dogma.

 

[Utsikt]

What did they expect by just asking to be emailed? Just use any of the survey tools that have bot and spam protection.