ArticleBMJ global health2025
A multi-country comparison between mobile phone surveys and face-to-face household surveys to estimate the prevalence of non-communicable diseases behavioural risk factors in low- and middle-income settings.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital and Technology-Enabled Approaches in Dietary Assessment: Addressing Bias, Error, and Feasibility in Population- and Community-Based Research.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Feasibility of mobile-based noncommunicable disease risk factor data collection using WhatsApp and interactive voice response in Colombia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring barriers to IVR surveys and the effectiveness of human follow-up calls: insights from a mixed methods study in Uganda.Oxford open digital health · 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough mobile phone surveys (MPS) are routinely used to collect health information in high-income countries, concerns remain about the impact of bias on population-level estimates in low-income settings and validation studies are lacking. This study aims to compare non-communicable diseases (NCDs) risk factor estimates obtained from MPS and nationally representative face-to-face household surveys in six low- and middle-income settings.
methodsThe MPS contained core questions from the standard STEPwise approach to NCD risk factor surveillance questionnaire. MPS sampling frames were generated by random digit dialling, while data collection was done by interactive voice response and SMS. At the same time, a nationally representative household survey (WHO STEPS) was conducted using multi-stage sampling. Participants aged 18 and older were included. Absolute differences and prevalence ratios, with 95% CIs, were analysed. The distribution of the differences between estimates by sex, age and education was also explored.
resultsMPS and STEPS surveys were conducted in Ecuador, Malawi, Morocco, Zambia, Mumbai (India) and Sri Lanka between 2017 and 2022. Overall, MPS estimates of NCDs were most similar to STEPS estimates in Ecuador and Sri Lanka, and most dissimilar in Mumbai and Malawi. Broadly, smoking tobacco, fruit and vegetable consumption, and current drinking questions performed similarly across settings, whereas questions on smokeless tobacco, salt intake and hypertension yielded dissimilar results.
conclusionsMPS estimates were most similar to household estimates in settings with high levels of mobile phone ownership. MPS have the potential to serve as a valuable tool to monitor and address NCD risk factors, in addition to traditional face-to-face household surveys. However, producing nationally representative MPS estimates requires careful adjustments to sampling strategies, addressing coverage biases and overcoming technological limitations. Currently, face-to-face household surveys reach a more representative sample of the population, including those in remote and lower educational demographics.
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.