Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34789341›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2021

Collecting quantitative experimental data from a non-WEIRD population: challenges and practical recommendations from a field experiment in rural Sierra Leone.

Hanna Luetke Lanfer, Doreen Reifegerste, Sorie Ibrahim Kargbo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Hanna Luetke LanferSchool of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany. hanna.luetkelanfer@uni-bielefeld.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3118-248X
Doreen ReifegersteSchool of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
Sorie Ibrahim Kargbo, Freetown, Sierra Leone.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveStandardized pretest-posttest experimental designs with quantitative surveys are frequently applied to evaluate the effectiveness of health programs. However, this method is strongly informed by research on samples from Western, Educated, Industralized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies and may not produce meaningful results in a distinct cultural, educational and socioeconomic context.

resultsThis paper reports several methodological challenges encountered along the research process of collecting quantitative survey data (i.e., during recruitment, obtaining informed consent, matching pretest-posttest data and data collection) for a mixed-methods field experiment on domestic handwashing in Sierra Leone. Ethical dilemmas of certain research practices are pointed out and potential solutions or alternatives are recommended for each challenge. Analysis of these challenges highlights the importance of reflecting on the aptness of research methodologies for non-WEIRD samples. While this is not to say that quantitative surveys are not suitable in a non-WEIRD context, their employment require considerable time for extensive pilot testing, involving local interviewers and participants in designing research projects and the modification of data collection strategies.

Indexed as

Rural PopulationEducational StatusHumansSierra LeoneCross-culturalMethodologySierra LeoneSurveyWEIRD

Identifiers

PMID34789341
PMCPMC8597296

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.