Dataset Information

Electronic data collection, management and analysis tools used for outbreak response in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and stakeholder survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Use of electronic data collection, management and analysis tools to support outbreak response is limited, especially in low income countries. This can hamper timely decision-making during outbreak response. Identifying available tools and assessing their functions in the context of outbreak response would support appropriate selection and use, and likely more timely data-driven decision-making during outbreaks.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and a stakeholder survey of the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network and other partners to identify and describe the use of, and technical characteristics of, electronic data tools used for outbreak response in low- and middle-income countries. Databases included were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Web of Science and CINAHL with publications related to tools for outbreak response included from January 2010-May 2020. Software tool websites of identified tools were also reviewed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and counts, and proportions of data obtained from the review or stakeholder survey were calculated.

Results

We identified 75 electronic tools including for data collection (33/75), management (13/75) and analysis (49/75) based on data from the review and survey. Twenty-eight tools integrated all three functionalities upon collection of additional information from the tool developer websites. The majority were open source, capable of offline data collection and data visualisation. EpiInfo, KoBoCollect and Open Data Kit had the broadest use, including for health promotion, infection prevention and control, and surveillance data capture. Survey participants highlighted harmonisation of data tools as a key challenge in outbreaks and the need for preparedness through training front-line responders on data tools. In partnership with the Global Health Network, we created an online interactive decision-making tool using data derived from the survey and review.

Conclusions

Many electronic tools are available for data -collection, -management and -analysis in outbreak response, but appropriate tool selection depends on knowledge of tools' functionalities and capabilities. The online decision-making tool created to assist selection of the most appropriate tool(s) for outbreak response helps by matching requirements with functionality. Applying the tool together with harmonisation of data formats, and training of front-line responders outside of epidemic periods can support more timely data-driven decision making in outbreaks.

SUBMITTER: Keating P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8464108 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHealth-related data collection tools, including digital ones, have become more prevalent across clinical studies in the last number of years. However, using digital data collection tools in low-income and middle-income countries presents unique challenges. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the data collection tools currently being used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in low-resource settings and evaluate the tools based on the characteristics outlined in the modified Mobile Survey Tool framework. These include functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, portability, effectiveness, cost-benefit, satisfaction, freedom from risk and context coverage. This evidence may provide a guide to selecting a suitable data collection tool for researchers planning to conduct research in low-income and middle-income countries for future studies.Methods and analysisSearches will be conducted in four electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE. For inclusion, studies must be a RCT, mention a health-related data collection tool and conducted in a low- and middle-income country. Only studies with available full-text and written in English will be included. The search was restricted to studies published between January 2005 and June 2023. This systematic review will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tool. Two review authors will screen the titles and abstracts of search results independently for inclusion. In the initial screening process, the full-text articles will be retrieved if the abstract contains limited information about the study. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, a third author (JO'D) will adjudicate. The study selection process will be outlined in a PRISMA flow-diagram. Data will be analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. The included studies and their outcomes will be presented in a table.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected in this study. The findings from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42023405738.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Given the growing interest in mobile data collection due to the proliferation of mobile phone ownership and network coverage in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), we synthesized the evidence comparing estimates of health outcomes from multiple modes of data collection. In particular, we reviewed studies that compared a mode of remote data collection with at least one other mode of data collection to identify mode effects and areas for further research. OBJECTIVE:The study systematically reviewed and summarized the findings from articles and reports that compare a mode of remote data collection to at least one other mode. The aim of this synthesis was to assess the reliability and accuracy of results. METHODS:Seven online databases were systematically searched for primary and grey literature pertaining to remote data collection in LMICs. Remote data collection included interactive voice response (IVR), computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI), short message service (SMS), self-administered questionnaires (SAQ), and Web surveys. Two authors of this study reviewed the abstracts to identify articles which met the primary inclusion criteria. These criteria required that the survey collected the data from the respondent via mobile phone or landline. Articles that met the primary screening criteria were read in full and were screened using secondary inclusion criteria. The four secondary inclusion criteria were that two or more modes of data collection were compared, at least one mode of data collection in the study was a mobile phone survey, the study had to be conducted in a LMIC, and finally, the study should include a health component. RESULTS:Of the 11,568 articles screened, 10 articles were included in this study. Seven distinct modes of remote data collection were identified: CATI, SMS (singular sitting and modular design), IVR, SAQ, and Web surveys (mobile phone and personal computer). CATI was the most frequent remote mode (n=5 articles). Of the three in-person modes (face-to-face [FTF], in-person SAQ, and in-person IVR), FTF was the most common (n=11) mode. The 10 articles made 25 mode comparisons, of which 12 comparisons were from a single article. Six of the 10 articles included sensitive questions. CONCLUSIONS:This literature review summarizes the existing research about remote data collection in LMICs. Due to both heterogeneity of outcomes and the limited number of comparisons, this literature review is best positioned to present the current evidence and knowledge gaps rather than attempt to draw conclusions. In order to advance the field of remote data collection, studies that employ standardized sampling methodologies and study designs are necessary to evaluate the potential for differences by survey modality.

Project description:ObjectiveAccurate reporting of birth outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is essential. Mobile health (mHealth) tools have been proposed as a replacement for conventional paper-based registers. mHealth could provide timely data for individual facilities and health departments, as well as capture deliveries outside facilities. This scoping review evaluates which mHealth tools have been reported to birth outcomes in the delivering room in LMICs and documents their reported advantages and drawbacks.DesignA scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and the mHealth evidence reporting and assessment checklist for evaluating mHealth interventions.Data sourcesPubMed, CINAHL and Global Health were searched for records until 3 February 2022 with no earliest date limit.Eligibility criteriaStudies were included where healthcare workers used mHealth tools in LMICs to record birth outcomes. Exclusion criteria included mHealth not being used at the point of delivery, non-peer reviewed literature and studies not written in English.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Common themes among studies were identified.Results640 records were screened, 21 of which met the inclusion criteria, describing 15 different mHealth tools. We identified six themes: (1) digital tools for labour monitoring (8 studies); (2) digital data collection of specific birth outcomes (3 studies); (3) digital technologies used in community settings (6 studies); (4) attitudes of healthcare workers (10 studies); (5) paper versus electronic data collection (3 studies) and (6) infrastructure, interoperability and sustainability (8 studies).ConclusionSeveral mHealth technologies are reported to have the capability to record birth outcomes at delivery, but none were identified that were designed solely for that purpose. Use of digital delivery registers appears feasible and acceptable to healthcare workers, but definitive evaluations are lacking. Further assessment of the sustainability of technologies and their ability to integrate with existing health information systems is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A wide range of screening tools are available to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but few have been specifically developed for populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Cross-cultural application of a screening tool requires that its validity be assessed against a gold standard diagnostic interview. Validation studies of brief CMD screening tools have been conducted in several LMIC, but until now there has been no review of screening tools for all CMDs across all LMIC populations. METHODS:A systematic review with broad inclusion criteria was conducted, producing a comprehensive summary of brief CMD screening tools validated for use in LMIC populations. For each validation, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated as an easily comparable measure of screening tool validity. Average DOR results weighted by sample size were calculated for each screening tool, enabling us to make broad recommendations about best performing screening tools. RESULTS:153 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Because many studies validated two or more screening tools, this corresponded to 273 separate validations against gold standard diagnostic criteria. We found that the validity of every screening tool tested in multiple settings and populations varied between studies, highlighting the importance of local validation. Many of the best performing tools were purposely developed for a specific population; however, as these tools have only been validated in one study, it is not possible to draw broader conclusions about their applicability in other contexts. CONCLUSIONS:Of the tools that have been validated in multiple settings, the authors broadly recommend using the SRQ-20 to screen for general CMDs, the GHQ-12 for CMDs in populations with physical illness, the HADS-D for depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 for depressive disorders in populations with good literacy levels, the EPDS for perinatal depressive disorders, and the HADS-A for anxiety disorders. We recommend that, wherever possible, a chosen screening tool should be validated against a gold standard diagnostic assessment in the specific context in which it will be employed.