首页> 外文OA文献 >Do surveys with paper and electronic devices differ in quality and cost? Experience from the Rufiji Health and demographic surveillance system in Tanzania
【2h】

Do surveys with paper and electronic devices differ in quality and cost? Experience from the Rufiji Health and demographic surveillance system in Tanzania

机译:纸质和电子设备的调查质量和成本是否不同?来自坦桑尼亚Rufiji Health和人口监测系统的经验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Data entry at the point of collection using mobile electronic devices may make data-handling processes more efficient and cost-effective, but there is little literature to document and quantify gains, especially for longitudinal surveillance systems.; To examine the potential of mobile electronic devices compared with paper-based tools in health data collection.; Using data from 961 households from the Rufiji Household and Demographic Survey in Tanzania, the quality and costs of data collected on paper forms and electronic devices were compared. We also documented, using qualitative approaches, field workers, whom we called 'enumerators', and households' members on the use of both methods. Existing administrative records were combined with logistics expenditure measured directly from comparison households to approximate annual costs per 1,000 households surveyed.; Errors were detected in 17% (166) of households for the paper records and 2% (15) for the electronic records (p  0.001). There were differences in the types of errors (p = 0.03). Of the errors occurring, a higher proportion were due to accuracy in paper surveys (79%, 95% CI: 72%, 86%) compared with electronic surveys (58%, 95% CI: 29%, 87%). Errors in electronic surveys were more likely to be related to completeness (32%, 95% CI 12%, 56%) than in paper surveys (11%, 95% CI: 7%, 17%).The median duration of the interviews ('enumeration'), per household was 9.4 minutes (90% central range 6.4, 12.2) for paper and 8.3 (6.1, 12.0) for electronic surveys (p = 0.001). Surveys using electronic tools, compared with paper-based tools, were less costly by 28% for recurrent and 19% for total costs. Although there were technical problems with electronic devices, there was good acceptance of both methods by enumerators and members of the community.; Our findings support the use of mobile electronic devices for large-scale longitudinal surveys in resource-limited settings.
机译:使用移动电子设备收集数据时,数据输入可以使数据处理过程更高效,更具成本效益,但是很少有文献记录和量化收益,特别是对于纵向监视系统。与纸质工具相比,检查移动电子设备在健康数据收集方面的潜力。使用来自坦桑尼亚Rufiji家庭和人口调查的961户家庭的数据,比较了纸质表格和电子设备上收集的数据的质量和成本。我们还使用定性方法记录了我们称为“调查员”的现场工作人员以及家庭成员使用这两种方法的情况。将现有行政记录与直接从比较家庭中测算的后勤支出相结合,得出每千户被调查家庭的年度成本大约。在纸质记录中发现17%(166)的家庭有错误,在电子记录中发现2%(15)的家庭中的错误(p <0.001)。错误类型有所不同(p = 0.03)。在发生的错误中,与电子调查(58%,95%CI:29%,87%)相比,纸质调查的准确性更高(79%,95%CI:72%,86%)。与书面调查(11%,95%CI:7%,17%)相比,电子调查中的错误更可能与完整性有关(32%,95%CI 12%,56%)。 (「列举」),每个住户的纸质调查为9.4分钟(中心范围6.4、12.2)为90分钟,电子调查为8.3(6.1、12.0)(p = 0.001)。与基于纸质工具的调查相比,使用电子工具进行的调查的费用减少了28%(经常性费用)和19%(总费用)。尽管电子设备存在技术问题,但枚举者和社区成员都很好地接受了这两种方法。我们的发现支持在资源有限的情况下将移动电子设备用于大规模纵向调查。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号