Literature DB >> 23867223

Concealment and fabrication by experienced research subjects.

Eric G Devine1, Megan E Waters, Megan Putnam, Caitlin Surprise, Katie O'Malley, Courtney Richambault, Rachel L Fishman, Clifford M Knapp, Elissa H Patterson, Ofra Sarid-Segal, Chris Streeter, Laurie Colanari, Domenic A Ciraulo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Subjects who enroll in multiple studies have been found to use deception at times to overcome restrictive screening criteria. Deception undermines subject safety as well as study integrity. Little is known about the extent to which experienced research subjects use deception and what type of information is concealed, withheld, or distorted.
PURPOSE: This study examined the prevalence of deception and types of deception used by subjects enrolling in multiple studies.
METHODS: Self-report of deceptive behavior used to gain entry into clinical trials was measured among a sample of 100 subjects who had participated in at least two studies in the past year.
RESULTS: Three quarters of subjects reported concealing some health information from researchers in their lifetime to avoid exclusion from enrollment in a study. Health problems were concealed by 32% of the sample, use of prescribed medications by 28%, and recreational drug use by 20% of the sample. One quarter of subjects reported exaggerating symptoms in order to qualify for a study and 14% reported pretending to have a health condition in order to qualify. LIMITATIONS: Although this study finds high rates of lifetime deceptive behavior, the frequency and context of this behavior is unknown. Understanding the context and frequency of deception will inform the extent to which it jeopardizes study integrity and safety.
CONCLUSION: The use of deception threatens both participant safety and the integrity of research findings. Deception may be fueled in part by undue inducements, overly restrictive criteria for entry, and increased demand for healthy controls. Screening measures designed to detect deception among study subjects would aid in both protecting subjects and ensuring the quality of research findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23867223     DOI: 10.1177/1740774513492917

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  35 in total

1.  Evaluation of a plasticity-based cognitive training program in schizophrenia: Results from the eCaesar trial.

Authors:  Henry W Mahncke; Sarah-Jane Kim; Annika Rose; Catherine Stasio; Peter Buckley; Stanley Caroff; Erica Duncan; Sarah Yasmin; L Fredrik Jarskog; J Steven Lamberti; Keith Nuechterlein; Martin Strassnig; Dawn Velligan; Joseph Ventura; Trina Walker; T Scott Stroup; Richard S E Keefe
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 2.  Deception in clinical trials and its impact on recruitment and adherence of study participants.

Authors:  Chuen Peng Lee; Tyson Holmes; Eric Neri; Clete A Kushida
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 2.226

3.  Individual differences in the processing of smoking-cessation video messages: An imaging genetics study.

Authors:  Zhenhao Shi; An-Li Wang; Catherine A Aronowitz; Daniel Romer; Daniel D Langleben
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 3.251

Review 4.  Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations.

Authors:  Jennifer S Gewandter; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Eric G Devine; David Hewitt; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Amy A Kirkwood; Richard Malamut; John D Markman; Bernard Vrijens; Laurie Burke; James N Campbell; Daniel B Carr; Philip G Conaghan; Penney Cowan; Mittie K Doyle; Robert R Edwards; Scott R Evans; John T Farrar; Roy Freeman; Ian Gilron; Dean Juge; Robert D Kerns; Ernest A Kopecky; Michael P McDermott; Gwendolyn Niebler; Kushang V Patel; Richard Rauck; Andrew S C Rice; Michael Rowbotham; Nelson E Sessler; Lee S Simon; Neil Singla; Vladimir Skljarevski; Tina Tockarshewsky; Geertrui F Vanhove; Ajay D Wasan; James Witter
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2019-12-13       Impact factor: 5.820

5.  Using "clinical trial diaries" to track patterns of participation for serial healthy volunteers in U.S. phase I studies.

Authors:  Heather B Edelblute; Jill A Fisher
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  "Money Helps": People who inject drugs and their perceptions of financial compensation and its ethical implications.

Authors:  Roberto Abadie; Brandon Brown; Celia B Fisher
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2018-11-05

Review 7.  Detecting Deception in Our Research Participants: Are Your Participants Who You Think They Are?

Authors:  Mary E McCaul; Gary S Wand
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2017-12-29       Impact factor: 3.455

Review 8.  Design and conduct of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials.

Authors:  Nathaniel Katz
Journal:  Pain Rep       Date:  2020-12-18

9.  Safety, Science, or Both? Deceptive Healthy Volunteers: Psychiatric Conditions Uncovered by Objective Methods of Screening.

Authors:  Adriana Pavletic; Maryland Pao
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 2.386

10.  Payment expectations for research participation among subjects who tell the truth, subjects who conceal information, and subjects who fabricate information.

Authors:  Eric G Devine; Clifford M Knapp; Ofra Sarid-Segal; Sean M O'Keefe; Cale Wardell; Morgan Baskett; Ashley Pecchia; Katie Ferrell; Domenic A Ciraulo
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 2.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.