Download
Zeleke-et-al_2021_Data Quality and Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Electronic and Paper-Based.pdf 848,83KB
WeightNameValue
1000 Titel
  • Data Quality and Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Electronic and Paper-Based Interviewer-Administered Public Health Surveys: Systematic Review
1000 Autor/in
  1. Zeleke, Atinkut Alamirrew |
  2. Naziyok, Tolga Philipp |
  3. Fritz, Fleur |
  4. Christianson, Lara |
  5. Röhrig, Rainer |
1000 Erscheinungsjahr 2021
1000 LeibnizOpen
1000 Publikationstyp
  1. Artikel |
1000 Online veröffentlicht
  • 2021-01-22
1000 Erschienen in
1000 Quellenangabe
  • 23(1):e21382
1000 FRL-Sammlung
1000 Copyrightjahr
  • 2021
1000 Lizenz
1000 Verlagsversion
  • https://doi.org/10.2196/21382 |
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7864777/ |
1000 Publikationsstatus
1000 Begutachtungsstatus
1000 Sprache der Publikation
1000 Abstract/Summary
  • BACKGROUND: A population-level survey (PLS) is an essential and standard method used in public health research that supports the quantification of sociodemographic events, public health policy development, and intervention designs. Data collection mechanisms in PLS seem to be a significant determinant in avoiding mistakes. Using electronic devices such as smartphones and tablet computers improves the quality and cost-effectiveness of public health surveys. However, there is a lack of systematic evidence to show the potential impact of electronic data collection tools on data quality and cost reduction in interviewer-administered surveys compared with the standard paper-based data collection system. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of the interviewer-administered electronic data collection methods on data quality and cost reduction in PLS compared with traditional methods. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Web of Science, EconLit, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CDSR to identify relevant studies from 2008 to 2018. We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that examined data quality and cost reduction outcomes, as well as usability, user experience, and usage parameters. In total, 2 independent authors screened the title and abstract, and extracted data from selected papers. A third author mediated any disagreements. The review authors used EndNote for deduplication and Rayyan for screening. RESULTS: Our search produced 3817 papers. After deduplication, we screened 2533 papers, and 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. None of the studies were randomized controlled trials; most had a quasi-experimental design, for example, comparative experimental evaluation studies nested on other ongoing cross-sectional surveys. A total of 4 comparative evaluations, 2 pre-post intervention comparative evaluations, 2 retrospective comparative evaluations, and 4 one-arm noncomparative studies were included. Meta-analysis was not possible because of the heterogeneity in study designs, types, study settings, and level of outcome measurements. Individual paper synthesis showed that electronic data collection systems provided good quality data and delivered faster compared with paper-based data collection systems. Only 2 studies linked cost and data quality outcomes to describe the cost-effectiveness of electronic data collection systems. 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 offered by electronic data collection systems. Challenges during implementation included technical difficulties, accidental data loss, device theft, security concerns, power surges, and internet connection problems. CONCLUSIONS: Although evidence exists of the comparative advantages of electronic data collection compared with paper-based methods, the included studies were not methodologically rigorous enough to combine. More rigorous studies are needed to compare paper and electronic data collection systems in public health surveys considering data quality, work efficiency, and cost reduction.
1000 Sacherschließung
lokal Mobile phone
lokal Electronic data collection
lokal Demographic and health survey
lokal Tablet computer
lokal Smartphone
1000 Fächerklassifikation (DDC)
1000 Liste der Beteiligten
  1. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7838-9050|https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9102-4777|https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9005-6766|https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7780-255X|https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0032-5118
1000 Label
1000 Förderer
  1. Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst |
1000 Fördernummer
  1. -
1000 Förderprogramm
  1. -
1000 Dateien
1000 Förderung
  1. 1000 joinedFunding-child
    1000 Förderer Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst |
    1000 Förderprogramm -
    1000 Fördernummer -
1000 Objektart article
1000 Beschrieben durch
1000 @id frl:6428989.rdf
1000 Erstellt am 2021-08-23T10:53:38.616+0200
1000 Erstellt von 266
1000 beschreibt frl:6428989
1000 Bearbeitet von 25
1000 Zuletzt bearbeitet Wed Sep 08 12:10:39 CEST 2021
1000 Objekt bearb. Wed Sep 08 12:10:05 CEST 2021
1000 Vgl. frl:6428989
1000 Oai Id
  1. oai:frl.publisso.de:frl:6428989 |
1000 Sichtbarkeit Metadaten public
1000 Sichtbarkeit Daten public
1000 Gegenstand von

View source