Cargando…

Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Traditional data collection methods using paper and email are increasingly being replaced by data collection using mobile phones, although there is limited evidence evaluating the impact of mobile phone technology as part of an automated research management system on data collection and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bond, Diana M, Hammond, Jeremy, Shand, Antonia W, Nassar, Natasha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7479579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32763873
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/15284
_version_ 1783580303238889472
author Bond, Diana M
Hammond, Jeremy
Shand, Antonia W
Nassar, Natasha
author_facet Bond, Diana M
Hammond, Jeremy
Shand, Antonia W
Nassar, Natasha
author_sort Bond, Diana M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Traditional data collection methods using paper and email are increasingly being replaced by data collection using mobile phones, although there is limited evidence evaluating the impact of mobile phone technology as part of an automated research management system on data collection and health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare a web-based mobile phone automated system (MPAS) with a more traditional delivery and data collection system combining paper and email data collection (PEDC) in a cohort of breastfeeding women. METHODS: We conducted a substudy of a randomized controlled trial in Sydney, Australia, which included women with uncomplicated term births who intended to breastfeed. Women were recruited within 72 hours of giving birth. A quasi-randomized number of women were recruited using the PEDC system, and the remainder were recruited using the MPAS. The outcomes assessed included the effectiveness of data collection, impact on study outcomes, response rate, acceptability, and cost analysis between the MPAS and PEDC methods. RESULTS: Women were recruited between April 2015 and December 2016. The analysis included 555 women: 471 using the MPAS and 84 using the PEDC. There were no differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. At the end of the 8-week treatment phase, the MPAS group showed an increased response rate compared with the PEDC group (56% vs 37%; P<.001), which was also seen at the 2-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. At the 2-month follow-up, the MPAS participants also showed an increased rate of self-reported treatment compliance (70% vs 56%; P<.001) and a higher recommendation rate for future use (95% vs 64%; P<.001) as compared with the PEDC group. The cost analysis between the 2 groups was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: MPAS is an effective and acceptable method for improving the overall management, treatment compliance, and methodological quality of clinical research to ensure the validity and reliability of findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7479579
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74795792020-10-02 Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial Bond, Diana M Hammond, Jeremy Shand, Antonia W Nassar, Natasha JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Original Paper BACKGROUND: Traditional data collection methods using paper and email are increasingly being replaced by data collection using mobile phones, although there is limited evidence evaluating the impact of mobile phone technology as part of an automated research management system on data collection and health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare a web-based mobile phone automated system (MPAS) with a more traditional delivery and data collection system combining paper and email data collection (PEDC) in a cohort of breastfeeding women. METHODS: We conducted a substudy of a randomized controlled trial in Sydney, Australia, which included women with uncomplicated term births who intended to breastfeed. Women were recruited within 72 hours of giving birth. A quasi-randomized number of women were recruited using the PEDC system, and the remainder were recruited using the MPAS. The outcomes assessed included the effectiveness of data collection, impact on study outcomes, response rate, acceptability, and cost analysis between the MPAS and PEDC methods. RESULTS: Women were recruited between April 2015 and December 2016. The analysis included 555 women: 471 using the MPAS and 84 using the PEDC. There were no differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. At the end of the 8-week treatment phase, the MPAS group showed an increased response rate compared with the PEDC group (56% vs 37%; P<.001), which was also seen at the 2-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. At the 2-month follow-up, the MPAS participants also showed an increased rate of self-reported treatment compliance (70% vs 56%; P<.001) and a higher recommendation rate for future use (95% vs 64%; P<.001) as compared with the PEDC group. The cost analysis between the 2 groups was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: MPAS is an effective and acceptable method for improving the overall management, treatment compliance, and methodological quality of clinical research to ensure the validity and reliability of findings. JMIR Publications 2020-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7479579/ /pubmed/32763873 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/15284 Text en ©Diana M Bond, Jeremy Hammond, Antonia W Shand, Natasha Nassar. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 25.08.2020. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Bond, Diana M
Hammond, Jeremy
Shand, Antonia W
Nassar, Natasha
Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial
title Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial
title_fullStr Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial
title_short Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial
title_sort comparing a mobile phone automated system with a paper and email data collection system: substudy within a randomized controlled trial
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7479579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32763873
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/15284
work_keys_str_mv AT bonddianam comparingamobilephoneautomatedsystemwithapaperandemaildatacollectionsystemsubstudywithinarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hammondjeremy comparingamobilephoneautomatedsystemwithapaperandemaildatacollectionsystemsubstudywithinarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT shandantoniaw comparingamobilephoneautomatedsystemwithapaperandemaildatacollectionsystemsubstudywithinarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT nassarnatasha comparingamobilephoneautomatedsystemwithapaperandemaildatacollectionsystemsubstudywithinarandomizedcontrolledtrial