ArticleGlobal health action2017
Do surveys with paper and electronic devices differ in quality and cost? Experience from the Rufiji Health and demographic surveillance system in Tanzania.
Article in Global health action, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Data Quality and Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Electronic and Paper-Based Interviewer-Administered Public Health Surveys: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Use of Mobile Forms in Low-Resource Areas for Population Health Surveys: Interview and Field Test Study.JMIRx med · 2025Article
- Does electronic data collection perform better than paper-based data collection in health research fieldwork? A participatory action research in Zanzibar.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- The Vinyasa Tool for mHealth Solutions: Supporting Human-Centered Design in Nascent Digital Health Ecosystems.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- The cost and cost efficiency of conducting a 24-h dietary recall using INDDEX24, a mobile dietary assessment platform, compared with pen-and-paper interview in Viet Nam and Burkina Faso.The British journal of nutrition · 2023Article
- Validation of the INDDEX24 mobile appThe British journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- Converting the existing disease surveillance from a paper-based to an electronic-based system using district health information system (DHIS-2) for real-time information: the Lebanese experience.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Comparative validity and reliability of the WeChat-based electronic and paper-and-pencil versions of the PISQ-12 for collecting participant-reported data in Chinese.Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- Paper Versus Digital Data Collection Methods for Road Safety Observations: Comparative Efficiency Analysis of Cost, Timeliness, Reliability, and Results.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Using electronic tablets for data collection for healthcare service and maternal health assessments in low resource settings: lessons learnt.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- How short or long should be a questionnaire for any research? Researchers dilemma in deciding the appropriate questionnaire length.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData 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.
objectiveTo examine the potential of mobile electronic devices compared with paper-based tools in health data collection.
methodsUsing 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.
resultsErrors 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.
conclusionsOur findings support the use of mobile electronic devices for large-scale longitudinal surveys in resource-limited settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.