Paper Versus Digital Data Collection Methods for Road Safety Observations: Comparative Efficiency Analysis of Cost, Timeliness, Reliability, and Results

BACKGROUND: Roadside observational studies play a fundamental role in designing evidence-informed strategies to address the pressing global health problem of road traffic injuries. Paper-based data collection has been the standard method for such studies, although digital methods are gaining popularity in all types of primary data collection. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the reliability, productivity, and efficiency of paper vs digital data collection based on three different road user behaviors: helmet use, seatbelt use, and speeding. It also aims to understand the cost and time efficiency of each method and to evaluate potential trade-offs among reliability, productivity, and efficiency. METHODS: A total of 150 observational sessions were conducted simultaneously for each risk factor in Mumbai, India, across two rounds of data collection. We matched the simultaneous digital and paper observation periods by date, time, and location, and compared the reliability by subgroups and the productivity using Pearson correlations (r). We also conducted logistic regressions separately by method to understand how similar results of inferential analyses would be. The time to complete an observation and the time to obtain a complete dataset were also compared, as were the total costs in US dollars for fieldwork, data entry, management, and cleaning. RESULTS: Productivity was higher in paper than digital methods in each round for each risk factor. However, the sample sizes across both methods provided a precision of 0.7 percentage points or smaller. The gap between digital and paper data collection productivity narrowed across rounds, with correlations improving from r=0.27-0.49 to 0.89-0.96. Reliability in risk factor proportions was between 0.61 and 0.99, improving between the two rounds for each risk factor. The results of the logistic regressions were also largely comparable between the two methods. Differences in regression results were largely attributable to small sample sizes in some variable levels or random error in variables where the prevalence of the outcome was similar among variable levels. Although data collectors were able to complete an observation using paper more quickly, the digital dataset was available approximately 9 days sooner. Although fixed costs were higher for digital data collection, variable costs were much lower, resulting in a 7.73% (US $3011/38,947) lower overall cost. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not face trade-offs among time efficiency, cost efficiency, statistical reliability, and descriptive comparability when deciding between digital and paper, as digital data collection proved equivalent or superior on these domains in the context of our project. As trade-offs among cost, timeliness, and comparability—and the relative importance of each—could be unique to every data collection project, researchers should carefully consider the questionnaire complexity, target sample size, implementation plan, cost and logistical constraints, and geographical contexts when making the decision between digital and paper.