scholarly journals Comparison of text messaging data collection vs face-to-face interviews for public health surveys: a cluster randomized crossover study of care-seeking for childhood pneumonia and diarrhoea in rural China

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Helena van Velthoven ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Qiong Wu ◽  
Ye Li ◽  
Robert W Scherpbier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Health Surveys ◽  
Rural China ◽  
Care Seeking ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study

scholarly journals Utilizing asynchronous email interviews for health research: overview of benefits and drawbacks

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Amri ◽  
Christina Angelakis ◽  
Dilani Logan
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Data Accuracy ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Face To Face

Abstract Objective Through collating observations from various studies and complementing these findings with one author’s study, a detailed overview of the benefits and drawbacks of asynchronous email interviewing is provided. Through this overview, it is evident there is great potential for asynchronous email interviews in the broad field of health, particularly for studies drawing on expertise from participants in academia or professional settings, those across varied geographical settings (i.e. potential for global public health research), and/or in circumstances when face-to-face interactions are not possible (e.g. COVID-19). Results Benefits of asynchronous email interviewing and additional considerations for researchers are discussed around: (i) access transcending geographic location and during restricted face-to-face communications; (ii) feasibility and cost; (iii) sampling and inclusion of diverse participants; (iv) facilitating snowball sampling and increased transparency; (v) data collection with working professionals; (vi) anonymity; (vii) verification of participants; (viii) data quality and enhanced data accuracy; and (ix) overcoming language barriers. Similarly, potential drawbacks of asynchronous email interviews are also discussed with suggested remedies, which centre around: (i) time; (ii) participant verification and confidentiality; (iii) technology and sampling concerns; (iv) data quality and availability; and (v) need for enhanced clarity and precision.

scholarly journals Data quality and cost-effectiveness analyses of electronic and paper-based interviewer-administered public health surveys: a systematic review (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke ◽  
Tolga Naziyok ◽  
Fleur Fritz ◽  
Lara Christianson ◽  
Rainer Röhrig
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Cost Reduction ◽  
Health Surveys ◽  
Collection System ◽  
Electronic Data ◽  
Data Collection System ◽  
Electronic Data Collection

BACKGROUND Population-level survey (PLS) is an essential standard method used in public health research. It supports to quantify sociodemographic events and support public health policy development and intervention designs with evidence. During survey, data collection mechanisms seem the most determinant to avoid mistakes before they happen. The use of electronic devices such as smartphones and tablet computers improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of public health surveys. However, there is a lack of systematically analyzed evidence to show the potential impact of electronic-based data collection tools on data quality and cost reduction in interviewer-administered surveys compared to the standard paper-based data collection system OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of interviewer-administered electronic device data collection methods concerning data quality and cost reduction in PLS compared to the traditional paper-based methods. METHODS A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Web of Science, EconLit and Cochrane CENTRAL, and CDSR to identify relevant studies from 2008 to 2018. We included randomized and non-randomized studies that examine data quality and cost reduction outcomes. Moreover, usability, user experience, and usage parameters from the same studies were included. Two independent authors screened the title, abstract, and finally extracted data from the included papers. A third author mediated in case of disagreement. The review authors used EndNote for de-duplication and Rayyan for screening RESULTS The search strategy from the electronic databases found 3,817 articles. After de-duplication, 2,533 articles were screened, and 14 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. None of the studies was designed as a randomized control trial. Most of the studies have a quasi-experimental design, like comparative experimental evaluation studies nested on the other ongoing cross-sectional surveys. 4 comparative evaluations, 2 pre-post intervention comparative evaluation, 2 retrospectives comparative evaluation, and 4 one arm non-comparative studies were included in our review. Meta-analysis was not possible because of the heterogeneity in study design, the type, and level of outcome measurements and the study settings. Individual article synthesis showed that data from electronic data collection systems possessed good quality data and delivered faster when compared to the paper-based data collection system. Only two studies linked the cost and data quality outcomes to describe the cost-effectiveness of electronic-based data collection systems. Despite the poor economic evaluation qualities, most of the reported results were in favor of EDC for the large-scale surveys. The field data collectors reported that an electronic data collection system was a feasible, acceptable and preferable tool for their work. Onsite data error prevention, fast data submission, and easy to handle devices were the comparative advantages of electronic data collection systems. Technical difficulties, accidental data loss, device theft, security concerns, power surges, and internet connection problems were reported as challenges during the implementation. CONCLUSIONS Though positive evidence existed about the comparative advantage of electronic data capture over paper-based tools, the included studies were not methodologically rigorous enough to combine. We need more rigorous studies that demonstrate the comparative evidence of paper and electronic-based data collection systems in public health surveys on data quality, work efficiency, and cost reduction CLINICALTRIAL The review protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42018092259. The protocol of this article was also pre-published (JMIR Res Protoc 2019;8(1): e10678 doi:10.2196/10678).

scholarly journals Comparison of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living assessment by face-to-face or telephone interviews: A randomized, crossover study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginie Dauphinot ◽  
Nawèle Boublay ◽  
Claire Moutet ◽  
Sarah Achi ◽  
Anthony Bathsavanis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Weighted Kappa ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Instrumental Activities ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study

Abstract Background The functional autonomy assessment is essential to manage patients with a neurodegenerative disease, but its evaluation is not always possible during consultation. To optimize ambulatory autonomy assessment, we compared the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) questionnaire collected by telephone and face-to-face interviews. Methods A randomized, crossover study was carried-out among patients attending a memory clinic (MC). The IADL questionnaire was collected for patients during telephone and face-to-face interviews between nurses and patients’caregivers. The agreement between the two methods was measured using the proportion of participants giving the same response, Cohen’s Kappa, intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient, and Bland and Altman method. The associations between patient characteristics, events occurring between the two assessments, and agreement were assessed. Results Among the 292 patients (means±SD age 81.5±7, MMSE 19.6±6, 39.7% with major neurocognitive disorders) analyzed, the proportion of agreement between the two modes was 89.4% for the total IADL score. Weighted Kappa coefficent was 0.66 and ICC score was 0.91 for total IADL score. The mean difference between the IADL score by telephone or face-to-face was 0.32. Overall, 96.9% of measures lay within the 95% limits of agreement. The occurrence of fall was less likely associated with the probability to lie within the 95% limits of agreement (OR=0.07[0.02-0.27]). Conclusion The administration of IADL by telephone with the caregiver appears to be an acceptable method of assessment for MC patients compared to face-to-face interview. The events such as falls which could occur in a time close to the evaluation should be reported.

scholarly journals Comparison of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living assessment by face-to-face or telephone interviews: A randomized, crossover study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginie Dauphinot ◽  
Nawèle Boublay ◽  
Claire Moutet ◽  
Sarah Achi ◽  
Anthony Bathsavanis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Weighted Kappa ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Instrumental Activities ◽  
Acceptable Method ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study

Abstract Background The functional autonomy assessment is essential to manage patients with a neurodegenerative disease, but its evaluation is not always possible during a consultation. To optimize ambulatory autonomy assessment, we compared the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) questionnaire collected by telephone and face-to-face interviews.Methods A randomized, crossover study was carried-out among patients attending a memory clinic (MC). The IADL questionnaire was collected for patients during telephone and face-to-face interviews between nurses and patients’caregivers. The agreement between the two methods was measured using the proportion of participants giving the same response, Cohen’s Kappa, intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient, and Bland and Altman method. The associations between patients’ characteristics, events occurring between the two assessments, and agreement were assessed.Results Among the 292 patients (means±SD age 81.5±7, MMSE 19.6±6, 39.7% with major neurocognitive disorders) analyzed, the proportion of agreement between the two modes was 89.4% for the total IADL score. Weighted Kappa coefficent was 0.66 and ICC score was 0.91 for total IADL score. The mean difference between the IADL score by telephone or face-to-face was 0.32. Overall, 96.9% of measures lay within the 95% limits of agreement. The occurrence of fall was less likely associated with the probability to lie within the 95% limits of agreement (OR=0.07[0.02-0.27]).Conclusion The administration of IADL by telephone with the caregiver appears to be an acceptable method of assessment for MC patients compared to face-to-face interview. The events such as falls which could occur in a time close to the evaluation should be reported.

Impact of Antibiotic Stewardship Rounds in the Intensive Care Setting: a prospective cluster-randomized crossover study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica L Seidelman ◽  
Nicholas A Turner ◽  
Rebekah H Wrenn ◽  
Christina Sarubbi ◽  
Deverick J Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Antibiotic Stewardship ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Baseline Period ◽  
Period Change ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
High Resource ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study

Abstract Background Few groups have formally studied the effect of dedicated antibiotic stewardship rounds (ASRs) on antibiotic use (AU) in intensive care units (ICUs). Methods We implemented weekly ASRs using a two-arm, cluster-randomized, crossover study in 5 ICUs at Duke University Hospital from 11/2017 to 6/2018. We excluded patients without an active antibiotic order, or if they had a marker of high complexity including an existing infectious disease consult, transplant, ventricular assist device, or ECMO. AU during and following ICU stay for patients with ASRs was compared to the controls. We recorded the number of reviews, recommendations delivered, and responses. We evaluated change in ICU-specific AU during and after the study. Results Our analysis included 4,683 patients: 2330 intervention and 2353 controls. Teams performed 761 reviews during ASRs, which excluded 1569 patients: 60% of patients off antibiotics, and 8% complex patients. Exclusions affected 88% the cardiac surgery ICU (CTICU) patients. AU rate ratio (RR) was 0.97 (0.91-1.04). When CTICU was removed, the RR was 0.93 (0.89-0.98). AU in the post-study period decreased by 16% (95% CI 11-24%) compared to the AU in the baseline period. Change in AU was differential among units: largest in the neurology ICU (-28%) and smallest in the CTICU (-2%). Conclusion Weekly multi-disciplinary ASRs was a high-resource intervention associated with a small AU reduction. The noticeable ICU AU decline over time is possibly due to indirect effects of ASRs. Effects differed among specialty ICUs, emphasizing the importance of customizing ASRs to match unit-specific population, workflow, and culture.

scholarly journals Unit Response and Costs in Web versus Face-To-Face Data Collection: Comparison of Two Cross-sectional Health Surveys (Preprint)

10.2196/26299 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elise Braekman ◽  
Stefaan Demarest ◽  
Rana Charafeddine ◽  
Sabine Drieskens ◽  
Finaba Berete ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Health Surveys ◽  
Unit Response ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Face To Face

scholarly journals Data Quality and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Electronic and Paper-Based Interviewer-Administered Public Health Surveys: Protocol for a Systematic Review (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke ◽  
Tolga Naziyok ◽  
Fleur Fritz ◽  
Rainer Röhrig
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Cost Reduction ◽  
Health Surveys ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Population Level ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Population-level survey is an essential standard method used in public health research to quantify sociodemographic events and support public health policy development and intervention designs with evidence. Although all steps in the survey can contribute to the data quality parameters, data collection mechanisms seem the most determinant, as they can avoid mistakes before they happen. The use of electronic devices such as smartphones and tablet computers improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of public health surveys. However, there is lack of systematically analyzed evidence to show the potential impact on data quality and cost reduction of electronic-based data collection tools in interviewer-administered surveys. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of interviewer-administered electronic device data collection methods concerning data quality and cost reduction in population-level surveys compared with the traditional paper-based methods. METHODS We will conduct a systematic search on Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Global Health, Trip, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies from 2007 to 2018 to identify relevant studies. The review will include randomized and nonrandomized studies that examine data quality and cost reduction outcomes. Moreover, usability, user experience, and usage parameters from the same study will be summarized. Two independent authors will screen the title and abstract. A third author will mediate in cases of disagreement. If the studies are considered to be combinable with minimal heterogeneity, we will perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS The preliminary search in PubMed and Web of Science showed 1491 and 979 resulting hits of articles, respectively. The review protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018092259). We anticipate January 30, 2019, to be the finishing date. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review will inform policymakers, investors, researchers, and technologists about the impact of an electronic-based data collection system on data quality, work efficiency, and cost reduction. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42018092259; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID= CRD42018092259 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/10678

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document