Assessing data quality in survey with healthcare providers on COVID-19 and the measures for improving
Abstract
Background: Social surveys have also been transformed with the advancements in research methods. However, only through appropriate methods, proper planning and procedures the data quality can be ensured.
Aim: The aim of the current research is to present the measures taken up in doing survey with healthcare providers of primary health care facilities during the time of COVID-19 and to assess the data quality.
Method: The survey was conducted with all 280 medical and paramedical staff in 24 primary healthcare centers of government to understand the preparedness of primary health care facilities in terms of providing a safe working environment to healthcare providers and to prevent the spread of infection while discharging duties during COVID-19. The study used mix mode of data collection by administering telephonic and self-administered questionnaire. It is a descriptive study based on review of secondary literature and the different measures adopted in the survey to ensure data quality.
Result: The variation found in responses to questions related to training, personal fears, challenges and coping mechanism was low, when asked differently in telephonic and self-administered questionnaire. It shows that the measures taken in conducting survey through mix mode of data collection at the time of COVID-19 were effective in overcoming the data quality challenges of COVID-19 to conduct face-to-face study and maintaining data quality of the survey.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that proper planning, preparations and precautions were effective in ascertaining the data quality.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Lyberg LE, Japec L, Biemer P. Quality improvement in surveys: A process perspective, 1998; paper presented at the joint Statistical Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Dallas, August
Groves RM, Fowler FJ, Couper MP, Jr, Lepkowski J M, Singer E, Tourangeau R. Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John-Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2009.
Lyberg LE, Biemer PP. Quality assurance and quality control in surveys. In E.D. de Leeuw, J.J. Hox, & D.A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology. New York/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008.
Baruch, Yehuda, Brooks C. Holtom. Survey Response Rate Levels and Trends in Organizational Research. Human Relations, 2008; vol. 61, (8) pp. 1139–1160.
Rogelberg S, Stanton J. Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 2007; 10, 195–209.
Nichols, P. Social Survey Methods, A Field guide for Development Workers, Oxfam, 2000.
The New Indian Express, 329 doctors succumbed to Covid-19 during second wave, maximum 80 from Bihar, 2021; IMA; Accessed on 27.05.2021 available at https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/may/20/329-doctors-succumbed-to-covid-19-during-secondwave-maximum-80-from-bihar-ima-2305238.html.
Salazar MK, Interviewer bias. How it affects survey research. AAOHN J. 1990 Dec;38(12):567-72.
Bosnjak M, Tuten TL. Classifying Response Behaviors in Web-based Surveys. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2001; vol6 Issue 3, JCMC 636. doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00124.x
Arora S, Yttri J, Nilse W. Privacy and Security in Mobile Health (mHealth) Research. Alcohol Research. 2014; 36(1), 143–151
Mwaka E, Nakigudde J, Ali J, Ochieng J, Hallez K, Tweheyo R, Labrique A, Gibson DG, Rutebemberwa E, Pariyo G. Consent for mobile phone surveys of non-communicable disease risk factors in low-resource settings: an exploratory qualitative study in Uganda. Mhealth. 2019 Aug 19;5:26. doi: 10.21037/mhealth.2019.07.05
Loshin D. Data Quality and MDM. In: Master Data Management. Elsevier. 2009; page 87-103. Available from doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374225-4.00005-9
Hawkins JE. The practical utility and suitability of email interviews in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 2018; 23(2), 493-501.
Hartge P, Cahill J. Field methods in epidemiology. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
Jedinger, Alexander, Oliver Watteler, and André Förster. Improving the quality of survey data documentation: A total survey error perspective. Data 3, 2018; 45. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/data3040045
Üstün TB, Chatterji S, Mechbal A, Murray CJ. World Health Organization. Quality assurance in surveys: Standards, guidelines and procedures. In: Household surveys in developing and transition countries. New York: UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2005; p. 199–228
Struminskaya, B, Gauly, B, Daikeler, J, Khorshed, J, Jedinger. A. Survey Data Documentation. GESIS – Survey Guidelines, 2018. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15465
Rattan AK. Data Integrity: History, Issues, and Remediation of Issues. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2018 Mar-Apr;72(2):105-116. doi:10.5731/pdajpst.2017.007765
Bohannon J. Many Surveys, about One in Five, May Contain Fraudulent Data, Science, 2016; February 24. doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf4104
Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2010 Aug;126(2):619–625. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bc
Kesmodel U S. Information bias in epidemiological studies with a special focus on obstetrics and gynecology. Acta Obstet Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2018 Apr;97(4):417-423. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13330. PMID: 29453880
Choi BC, Pak AW. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2005; Jan;2(1), A13.
Tripepi G, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C. Selection bias and information bias in clinical research. Nephron. Clinical practice, 2010; 115(2), c94–c99. doi.org/10.1159/000312871
Hornik, J. Time cue and time perception effect on response to mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981; 18, 243-249; doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800212
Cornish, J. Response problems in surveys: Improving response & minimising the load. UNSD Regional Seminar for ASEAN countries, Yangon Myanmar, 2002; Available online: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/statorg/Workshops/Yangon/Session4_Surveys_Cornish_Paper.pdf
Holbrook AL, Green MC, Krosnick JA, Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires - Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2003; Q. 67, 79–125
Takeuchi L R, Hine S, Chavez C. Asking people what they think: Using perceptions data to monitor the post- 2015 agenda. Available from https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9401.pdf
Leone T, Sochas L, Coast E. Depends Who's Asking: Interviewer Effects in Demographic and Health Surveys Abortion Data. Demography, 2021; 58(1), 31–50. doi.org/10.1215/00703370-8937468
Bogner K, Landrock U. Response Biases in Standardised Surveys. GESIS Survey Guidelines. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. 2016; doi: 10.15465/gesis-sg_en_016.
Kwak N, Radler B. A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics.2002; 18: 257-273
Rogelberg SG, Fisher GG, Maynard DC, Hakel MD, Horvath M. Attitudes toward surveys: Development of a measure and its relationship to respondent behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 2001; 4(1), 3–25. doi.org/10.1177/109442810141001
Heberlein TA, Baumgartner R. Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review: 1978;43: 447-462.
Nagata C, Hara S, Shimizu H. Factors affecting response to mail questionnaire: research topics, questionnaire length, and non-response bias. J Epidemiol 1995; 5:81-5.
Rolstad S, Adler J, Rydén A. Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2011 Dec;14(8):1101–8. doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23954/osj.v6i4.2964
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Open Science Journal (OSJ) is multidisciplinary Open Access journal. We accept scientifically rigorous research, regardless of novelty. OSJ broad scope provides a platform to publish original research in all areas of sciences, including interdisciplinary and replication studies as well as negative results.