Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40018140›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2024

Does electronic data collection perform better than paper-based data collection in health research fieldwork? A participatory action research in Zanzibar.

Omar Juma Othman, Eden Mashayo, Jamison Jones, Kajal Shah, Christine Graham, Ai Chee Yong, Ronnie Graham, Fatma Omar, Ving Fai Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Public Health Perspectives on IntegratingTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Omar Juma OthmanZanzibar Ministry of Health, Zanzibar, United Republic of Tanzania.
Eden MashayoVision Care Foundation, Dar-es-Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
Jamison JonesLoyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Kajal ShahDublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland.
Christine GrahamCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Ai Chee YongCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5623-5886
Ronnie GrahamVision Action, London, UK.
Fatma OmarZanzibar Ministry of Health, Zanzibar, United Republic of Tanzania.
Ving Fai ChanCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4968-7953

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Technological advancement in low-resource settings is opening the gateway to implementation of electronic data collection methods that improve data quality. We examined the concerns to use electronic data collection tool in Zanzibar, codeveloped a tool that addressed the concerns and evaluated the process and limitations of incorporating an electronic data collection tool aside from paper-based during a community-based study in Zanzibar. Methods: The science of improvement Plan-Do-Study-Act model guided this mixed-method participatory action research (PAR). From November 2022 to October 2023, 14 data collection team members participated in (1) a consultative workshop with a fishbone analysis to understand their hesitance to use electronic data collection tools for fieldwork (Plan); (2) developing implementation and evaluation plan for the paper-based method (Do); (3) assessing the proportion of errors and challenges faced using paper-based method (Study); and (4) codeveloping, implementing and assessing an electronic data collection tool (Act). Results: Stakeholders were hesitant to use electronic data collection tools because of fear of lost data due to poor internet, insufficient competency with technology due to lack of training, unfamiliarity with technology in general and fear of lost wages. The study revealed that using a paper-based data collection tool during baseline was time-consuming, with 12.8% of responses being errors (2611 errors out of 20 398 responses). However, once implemented, the electronic data collection application was fast and simple, with minimal errors (0.02%). Overall, there is a need to improve devices' storage capacity devices and provide more training. Conclusion: Using the PAR approach, we understood the concerns with electronic data collection tools, allowed the team to experience the challenges faced with the paper-based collection method, codeveloped an appropriate solution and changed their attitude towards using technology that could increase accuracy and efficiency of their fieldwork.

Indexed as

Community HealthPrevalencePublic Health

Identifiers

PMID40018140
PMCPMC11812857

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.