ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Developing digital tools for health surveys in low- and middle-income countries: Comparing findings of two mobile phone surveys with a nationally representative in-person survey in Bangladesh.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do Mobile Phone Surveys Supplement Other Mortality Surveillance Methods? Results From a National Study in Bangladesh.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
- Feasibility of mobile-based noncommunicable disease risk factor data collection using WhatsApp and interactive voice response in Colombia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Novel Automated Participant-Recorded Dietary Data Collection Method Using Low-Cost Mobile Phones and Interactive Voice Response with Low-Literacy Women: A Validation Study in Rural Uganda.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Understanding retention in longitudinal surveys conducted by mobile phone in lower-resource contexts: A case study from Kenya.PloS one · 2026Article
- Computer-Assisted Mobile Phone Interviews in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Through a Total Survey Error Framework.Public opinion quarterly · 2026Review
- Measuring childhood mortality through mobile phone interviews in Mozambique.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025Article
- A study in Bangladesh, Colombia, and Uganda on creating and retaining mobile health survey panels for longitudinal data collection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-communicable disease (NCD) risk factor data from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are inadequate, mostly due to the cost and burden of collecting in-person population-level estimates. High-income countries regularly use phone-based surveys, and with increasing mobile phone subscription in developing countries, mobile phone surveys (MPS) could complement in-person surveys in LMICs. We compared the representativeness and prevalence estimates of two MPS (i.e., interactive voice response (IVR) and computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI)) with a nationally representative household survey in Bangladesh-the STEPwise approach to NCD risk factor surveillance (STEPs) 2018. This cross-sectional study included 18-69-year-old respondents. CATI and IVR recruitments were done by random digit dialing, while STEPs used multistage cluster sampling design. The prevalence of NCD risk factors related to tobacco, alcohol, diet, and hypertension was reported and compared by prevalence differences (PD) and prevalence ratios (PR). We included 2355 (57% males), 1942 (62% males), and 8185 (47% males) respondents in the CATI, IVR, and STEPs, respectively. CATI (28%) and IVR (52%) had a higher proportion of secondary/above-educated people than STEPs (13%). Most prevalence estimates differed by survey mode; however, CATI estimates were closer to STEPs than IVR. For instance, in CATI, IVR, and STEPs, respectively, the prevalence was 21.4%, 17.9%, and 23.5% for current smoking; and 1.6%, 2.2%, and 1.5% for alcohol drinking in past month. Compared to STEPs, the PD ranged from '-56.6% to 0.4%' in CATI and '-41.0% to 8.4%' in IVR; the PR ranged from '0.3 to 1.1' in CATI and '0.3 to 1.6' in IVR. There were some differences and some similarities in NCD indicators produced by MPS and STEPs with differences likely due to differences in socioeconomic characteristics between survey participants.
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.