gms | German Medical Science

Background: Population-level survey (PLS) is an essential standard method used in public health research. It enables quantification of sociodemographic events and thereby supports both public health policy development and intervention design with evidence. Though all steps in a PLS can contribute to common data quality measures, data collection mechanisms seem the most determinant to avoid mistakes before they occur. The use of electronic devices such as smartphones and tablet computers improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of public health surveys. However, a systematically analyzed evidence is still missing to show the potential impact of electronic-based data collection tools on data quality and cost reduction in interviewer-administered surveys, particularly when compared to the standard paper-based data collection system. This work evaluates the impact of interviewer-administered electronic device data collection methods concerning data quality and cost reduction in PLS compared to 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 published 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 to screen and note the reasons for inclusion and exclusion based on the protocol. Meta-analysis was planned if the studies were considered combinable with minimal heterogeneity.

Results: The search resulted in 3,817 articles from the above-mentioned electronic databases. After de-duplication, 2,533 articles were screened, and 14 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. None of the studies were designed as a randomized control trial. Most of the studies used 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 the 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.

Conclusion: 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 argue that more rigorous studies are needed to demonstrate the comparative evidence of paper and electronic-based data collection systems in public health surveys on data quality, work efficiency, and cost reduction.

The protocol of this article is available as a pre-print [1]. The full paper manuscript of this abstract is also submitted to JMIR journal for Publication and under review.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

The authors declare that an ethics committee vote is not required.