Mergenthaler Christina, Yadav Rajpal Singh, Safi Sohrab, Rood Ente, Alba Sandra
KIT Royal Tropical Institute, Mauritskade 64, 1092, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Particip GmbH, Merzhauser Str. 183, 79100, Freiburg, Germany.
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2021 Nov 24;18(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12982-021-00106-3.
Through a nationally representative household survey in Afghanistan, we conducted an operational study in two relatively secure provinces comparing effectiveness of computer-aided personal interviewing (CAPI) with paper-and-pencil interviewing (PAPI).
In Panjshir and Parwan provinces, household survey data were collected using paper questionnaires in 15 clusters, and OpenDataKit (ODK) software on electronic tablets in 15 other clusters. Added value was evaluated from three perspectives: efficient implementation, data quality, and acceptability. Efficiency was measured through financial expenditures and time stamped data. Data quality was measured by examining completeness. Acceptability was studied through focus group discussions with survey staff.
Survey costs were 68% more expensive in CAPI clusters compared to PAPI clusters, due primarily to the upfront one-time investment for survey programming. Enumerators spent significantly less time administering surveys in CAPI cluster households (248 min survey time) compared to PAPI (289 min), for an average savings of 41 min per household (95% CI 25-55). CAPI offered a savings of 87 days for data management over PAPI. Among 49 tracer variables (meaning responses were required from all respondents), small differences were observed between PAPI and CAPI. 2.2% of the cleaned dataset's tracer data points were missing in CAPI surveys (1216/ 56,073 data points), compared to 3.2% in PAPI surveys (1953/ 60,675 data points). In pre-cleaned datasets, 3.9% of tracer data points were missing in CAPI surveys (2151/ 55,092 data points) compared to 3.2% in PAPI surveys (1924/ 60,113 data points). Enumerators from Panjsher and Parwan preferred CAPI over PAPI due to time savings, user-friendliness, improved data security, and less conspicuity when traveling; however approximately half of enumerators trained from all 34 provinces reported feeling unsafe due to Taliban presence. Community and household respondent skepticism could be resolved by enumerator reassurance. Enumerators shared that in the future, they prefer collecting data using CAPI when possible.
CAPI offers clear gains in efficiency over PAPI for data collection and management time, although costs are relatively comparable even without the programming investment. However, serious field staff concerns around Taliban threats and general insecurity mean that CAPI should only be conducted in relatively secure areas.
通过在阿富汗开展的一项具有全国代表性的家庭调查，我们在两个相对安全的省份进行了一项操作性研究，比较计算机辅助个人访谈（CAPI）与纸笔访谈（PAPI）的有效性。
在潘杰希尔省和帕尔旺省，在15个群组中使用纸质问卷收集家庭调查数据，在另外15个群组中使用电子平板电脑上的OpenDataKit（ODK）软件收集数据。从三个角度评估附加值：高效实施、数据质量和可接受性。效率通过财务支出和带时间戳的数据来衡量。数据质量通过检查完整性来衡量。通过与调查人员进行焦点小组讨论来研究可接受性。
与PAPI群组相比，CAPI群组的调查成本高出68%，主要原因是调查编程的前期一次性投资。与PAPI（289分钟）相比，调查员在CAPI群组家庭中进行调查花费的时间显著更少（248分钟调查时间），平均每户节省41分钟（95%置信区间25 - 55）。与PAPI相比，CAPI在数据管理方面节省了87天。在49个追踪变量（即所有受访者都需要回答）中，PAPI和CAPI之间观察到细微差异。在清理后的数据集的追踪数据点中，CAPI调查中有2.2%缺失（1216/56,073个数据点），而PAPI调查中为3.2%（1953/60,675个数据点）。在清理前的数据集中，CAPI调查中有3.9%的追踪数据点缺失（2151/55,092个数据点），而PAPI调查中为3.2%（1924/60,113个数据点）。来自潘杰希尔和帕尔旺的调查员由于节省时间、用户友好性、提高的数据安全性以及出行时不那么引人注目而更喜欢CAPI而非PAPI；然而，来自所有34个省份接受培训的调查员中约有一半报告称由于塔利班的存在而感到不安全。社区和家庭受访者的怀疑可以通过调查员的安抚来解决。调查员表示，未来他们在可能的情况下更喜欢使用CAPI收集数据。
在数据收集和管理时间方面，CAPI比PAPI在效率上有明显提升，尽管即使没有编程投资，成本也相对相当。然而，实地工作人员对塔利班威胁和普遍不安全的严重担忧意味着CAPI仅应在相对安全的地区进行。
