JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Rapid advances in mobile technologies and applications and the continued growth in coverage of digital networks have the potential to transform data collection in low- and middle-income countries. A common perception is that digital data collection (DDC) is faster and quickly adaptable.

Objective:

To test whether DDC is faster and more adaptable in a roadside environment, we conducted a reliability study comparing digital versus paper data collection in three cities in Ghana, Vietnam and Indonesia, observing road safety risk factors in real time

Methods:

Roadside observation of helmet use among motorcycle passengers, seatbelt use among four-wheeler passengers, and speeding was conducted in Accra, Ghana, Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam and Bandung, Indonesia. Two independent data collection teams were deployed to the same sites at the same dates and times, one using a paper-based data collection tool and the other using a digital tool. All research assistants were trained on paper and digital data-collection. A head-to-head analysis was conducted to compare the volume of observations (total and mean) as well as the prevalence of each risk factor. Correlations (r) for continuous variables and kappa for categorical variables are reported with their level of statistical significance.

Results:

In Accra, there were 119 observation periods (90-minute each) identical by date, time and location during helmet and seatbelt use risk factor data collection, and 118 identical periods observing speeding prevalence. In Bandung, there were 150 observation periods common to digital and paper data collection methods, while in HCMC, there were 77 matching observation periods for helmet use, 82 for seatbelt use and 84 for speeding. Data collectors using paper tools were more productive than their digital data collection counterparts during the study. Highest mean volume per session was recorded for speeding, with Bandung recording over 1000 vehicles on paper (paper: 1092, SD=435; digital: 807, SD=261); whereas lowest volume per session was from HCMC for seatbelts (paper: 52, SD=28; digital: 62, SD=30). Accra and Bandung showed good-to-high correlation for all three risk factors (r=.67 - .96) with higher reliability in assessing speeding and helmet use over seatbelt use; HCMC showed high reliability for speeding (r= .99) but lower reliability for helmet and seatbelt use (r= .08-.17). The reported prevalence of risk factors was comparable in all cities regardless of data collection method.

Conclusions:

Digital data collection is efficient, convenient and reliable during roadside observational data collection. There is some site-related variability in implementing digital data collection methods, and generally the volume of observations is higher using more familiar paper-based method. Even when there is lower reliability between digital and paper data collection methods when comparing results from specific dates, times and locations, the overall reported population prevalence is similar for all risk factors. Clinical Trial: Not applicable