McLean Estelle, Dube Albert, Saul Jacky, Branson Keith, Luhanga Mabvuto, Mwiba Oddie, Kalobekamo Fredrick, Geis Steffen, Crampin Amelia C
a Malawi Epidemiology and Intervention Research Unit , Karonga , Malawi.
b Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London , UK.
Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1367162. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2017.1367162.
This article aims to assess multiple issues of resources, staffing, local opinion, data quality, cost, and security while transitioning to electronic data collection (EDC) at a long-running community research site in northern Malawi. Levels of missing and error fields, delay from data collection to availability, and average number of interviews per day were compared between EDC and paper in a complex, repeated annual household survey. Three focus groups with field and data staff with experience using both methods, and in-depth interviews with participants were carried out. Cost for each method were estimated and compared. Missing data was more common on paper questionnaires than on EDC, and a similar number were carried out per day. Fieldworkers generally preferred EDC, but data staff feared for their employment. Most respondents had no strong preference for a method. The cost of the paper system was estimated to be higher than using EDC. The existing infrastructure and technical expertise could be adapted to using EDC, but changes have an impact on data processing jobs as fewer, and better qualified staff are required. EDC is cost-effective, and, for a long-running site, may offer further savings, as devices can be used in multiple studies and perform several other functions. EDC is accepted by fieldworkers and respondents, has good levels of quality and timeliness, and security can be maintained. EDC is well-suited for use in a well-established research site using and developing existing infrastructure and expertise.
本文旨在评估马拉维北部一个长期运行的社区研究站点在向电子数据收集(EDC)过渡时,在资源、人员配备、当地意见、数据质量、成本和安全等多个方面的问题。在一项复杂的年度重复家庭调查中,比较了EDC和纸质问卷两种方式下缺失和错误字段的水平、从数据收集到可用的延迟时间以及每天的平均访谈数量。对同时使用这两种方法的实地和数据工作人员进行了三个焦点小组讨论,并对参与者进行了深入访谈。估计并比较了每种方法的成本。纸质问卷上的缺失数据比EDC上更常见,每天进行的访谈数量相似。实地工作人员普遍更喜欢EDC,但数据工作人员担心自己的工作。大多数受访者对方法没有强烈偏好。估计纸质系统的成本高于使用EDC。现有的基础设施和技术专长可以适应使用EDC,但变化会对数据处理工作产生影响,因为所需的工作人员数量减少且素质更高。EDC具有成本效益,对于一个长期运行的站点,可能会进一步节省成本,因为设备可用于多项研究并执行其他多种功能。EDC为实地工作人员和受访者所接受,具有良好的质量和及时性水平,并且可以维持安全性。EDC非常适合在一个使用和发展现有基础设施及专业知识的成熟研究站点中使用。