IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0002053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Gulam Muhammaed Al Kibria
  • Saifuddin Ahmed
  • Iqbal Ansary Khan
  • Julián A Fernández-Niño
  • Andres Vecino-Ortiz
  • Joseph Ali
  • George Pariyo
  • Michelle Kaufman
  • Aninda Sen
  • Sunada Basu
  • Dustin Gibson

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gulam Muhammaed Al Kibria & Saifuddin Ahmed & Iqbal Ansary Khan & Julián A Fernández-Niño & Andres Vecino-Ortiz & Joseph Ali & George Pariyo & Michelle Kaufman & Aninda Sen & Sunada Basu & Dustin Gibs, 2023. "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," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-11, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0002053
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0002053
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0002053&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002053?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0002053. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.