Frequency of concealment, fabrication and falsification of study data by deceptive subjects.

Concealment Deceptive subjects Fabrication Frequency of deception Professional subjects

Journal

Contemporary clinical trials communications
ISSN: 2451-8654
Titre abrégé: Contemp Clin Trials Commun
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101671157

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Historique:
received: 09 07 2020
revised: 29 09 2020
accepted: 15 01 2021
entrez: 19 2 2021
pubmed: 20 2 2021
medline: 20 2 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Many studies have found evidence that research subjects engage in deceptive practices while participating in health-related studies. Little is known, however, about how often subjects use deception and the percentage of studies a typical subject will contaminate with false data. This study examined the frequency of use of different types of deception among a sample of subjects who admit to using deception. A sample of 59 subjects who had participated in at least two health-related studies in the past 12 months and admitted to using deception in at least one were interviewed. Subjects were asked a series of questions about Subjects who conceal information in order to enroll in trials reported using concealment in about two thirds (67%) of the trials they participated in over the past 12 months. On average, these subjects' use of concealment was highest for mental health information (58% of studies) and physical health information (57% of studies). The average frequency of fabricating information in order to enroll in trials was 53% with exaggerating health symptoms (45% of studies) and pretending to have a health condition (39% of studies) as the two most widely used strategies. Subjects who falsify study data after enrollment reported doing so 40% of the time. These subjects falsely reported improvement in the health condition being studied in 38% of the trials they took part in. Subjects who admitted to throwing away study medication to create the appearance of compliance reported doing so 32% of the time. Although this study provides evidence that subjects who admit to using deception contaminate a high percentage of studies, larger and more geographically diverse samples are needed to understand the full extent of the problem of deceptive subjects in research. Regional economic, cultural, or organizational factors may be related to the rate of subjects using deception. It is also possible that this sample underrepresents the use of deception as there are likely subjects who use deception that would be unwilling to admit the extent of this behavior. Deceptive subject's behavior poses a threat to the integrity of research findings. Given that deceptive subjects contaminate a high percentage of studies they take part in by concealing information, fabricating information, and falsifying study data after enrollment, efforts to identify and exclude these subjects is important to the integrity of research findings. Strategies to exclude deceptive subjects from health research should be used to inform study designs. Widespread adoption of research subject identity registries could greatly reduce the scope of studies that a single deceptive subject could contaminate. Technological solutions that provide an objective measure of medication compliance may be valuable tools for limiting fraudulent reports of compliance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33604482
doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100713
pii: S2451-8654(21)00015-6
pmc: PMC7876535
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100713

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The Authors.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Dr. Devine reported receiving grant support from the United States National Institutes of Health (NIDA and NIAAA) to conduct unrelated research testing medications for the treatment of addition in multi-site RCT research. Dr. Devine also had a consultant relationship with Opiant Pharmaceuticals to aid in the development of behavioral therapies. No other authors have conflicts to declare.

Références

Innov Clin Neurosci. 2013 Feb;10(2):17-21
pubmed: 23556138
J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015 Oct;35(5):566-73
pubmed: 26244381
Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2018 Sep;17(9):849-852
pubmed: 30073875
J Clin Psychiatry. 2011 Sep;72(9):1284; author reply 1284-5
pubmed: 21951988
J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2020;7(1):43-46
pubmed: 32010925
Clin Trials. 2013;10(6):935-48
pubmed: 23867223
JAMA. 2011 Mar 23;305(12):1236-7
pubmed: 21406636
J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Sep;56(9):1151-64
pubmed: 26634893
N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 24;373(13):1192-3
pubmed: 26398069
Psychosomatics. 2017 Nov - Dec;58(6):657-663
pubmed: 28651795
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Feb 21;5(2):e18
pubmed: 28223265
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016 Dec 18;5:67-71
pubmed: 29740622
J Law Med Ethics. 2013 Winter;41(4):829-40, Table of Contents
pubmed: 24446941
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018 Feb;42(2):230-237
pubmed: 29286543
Contemp Clin Trials. 2011 May;32(3):333-8
pubmed: 21278001

Auteurs

Eric G Devine (EG)

Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Alyssa M Pingitore (AM)

Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Kathryn N Margiotta (KN)

Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Natalia A Hadaway (NA)

Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Kathleen Reid (K)

Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Kristina Peebles (K)

Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Jae Won Hyun (JW)

Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Classifications MeSH