ArticleJournal of global health2021
Assessing socio-economic profile of U-Reporters: Towards establishing a pool for equity analysis of future crowdsourced surveys.
Article in Journal of global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Agents of Change for Mental Health: A Survey of Young People's Aspirations for Participation Across Five Low- and Middle-Income Countries.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCrowdsourcing was recognized as having the potential to collect information rapidly, inexpensively and accurately. U-Report is a mobile empowerment platform that connects young people all over the world to information that will change their lives and influence decisions. Previous studies of U-Report's effectiveness highlight strengths in the timeliness, low cost and high credibility for collecting and sending information, however they also highlight areas to improve on concerning data representation. EquityTool has developed a simpler approach to assess the wealth quintiles of respondents based on fewer questions derived from large household surveys such as Multiple Indicators Cluster Surveys (MICS) and Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS).
methodsThe methodology of Equity Tool was adopted to assess the socio-economic profile of U-Reporters (ie, enrolled participants of U-Report) in Bangladesh. The RapidPro flow collected the survey responses and scored them against the DHS national wealth index using the EquityTool methodology. This helped placing each U-Reporter who completed all questions into the appropriate wealth quintile.
resultsWith 19% of the respondents completing all questions, the respondents fell into all 5 wealth quintiles, with 79% in the top-two quintiles and only 21% in the lower-three resulting in an Equity Index of 53/100 where 100 is completely in line with Bangladesh equity distribution and 1 is the least in line. An equitable random sample of 1828 U-Reporters from among the regular and frequent respondents was subsequently created for future surveys and the sample has an Equity Index of 98/100.
conclusionsU-Report in Bangladesh does reach the poorest quintiles while the initial recruitment skews to respondents towards better off families. It is possible to create an equitable random sub-sample of respondents from all five wealth quintiles and thus process information and data for future surveys. Moving forward, U-Reporters from the poorly represented quintiles may be incentivized to recruit peers to increase equity and representation. In times of COVID-19, U-Report in combination with the EquityTool has the potential to enhance the quality of crowdsourced data for statistical analysis.
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.