ArticleBMJ global health2026
Assessing the impact of a facility-based digital intervention on district-level data quality in rural Burkina Faso.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDigital clinical decision support tools are increasingly used in primary-level health facilities to improve maternal and child healthcare. These tools guide health workers to input patient records digitally, providing a critical opportunity to strengthen routine health information systems with real-time data and improve quality of care. However, often, these service-level data are not always effectively integrated into existing data systems, reducing their downstream impact on data quality and data-driven decision-making. Our study evaluated the impact of a digital job aid tool (Registre Electronique de Consultations-Maternite, REC-Maternity tool), used by healthcare workers in rural primary healthcare facilities in Burkina Faso, on routine data quality at the district level.
methodsFirst, we conducted an analysis comparing REC-Maternity data (n=79 895 visits) with District Health Information System 2 (DHIS2) data from 34 facilities to assess agreement in service delivery records. Next, in a quasi-experimental study design, we used DHIS2 data in Toma intervention and Gourcy comparison districts to conduct a difference-in-difference analysis with 13 months preintervention and postintervention time horizon. We assessed the impact of the intervention on three DHIS2 data quality outcomes: completeness, timeliness and internal consistency.
resultsThe validation analysis revealed limited data agreement between REC-Maternity and DHIS2, particularly for postnatal care (ratio: 1.56) and family planning (ratio: 3.05). These discrepancies suggest parallel data flows from paper-based and electronic forms, indicating limited integration of the digital tool into routine reporting. The results also suggested the potential for digital records to help distinguish true zero-reporting from missing values in DHIS2. The difference-in-difference analysis indicated a significant decrease in timely reporting in the intervention district compared with the comparison district (-66.5% of facilities (95% CI -73.0% to -60.1%)). DISCUSSION: While digital tools offer a potential data revolution in resource-limited settings, they should not be presumed to be more efficient and replace paper-based data collection without continuous monitoring and quality improvement strategies.
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.