A M V Kumar1, P Chinnakali2, H Shewade1, V Gupta1, P Nagpal1, A D Harries3. 1. International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union), South-East Asia Office, New Delhi, India. 2. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India. 3. The Union, Paris, France ; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Abstract
SETTING: Training courses on data entry are few and far between compared to analysis. To address this gap, we conducted a short 2-day course on quality-assured data capture using EpiData for public health professionals in Bangalore and Puducherry, India, in 2013. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of participants who used EpiData and taught the software to others during the 2-years after training and explore the reasons for doing/not doing so. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with self-administered, semi-structured questionnaire developed using web-based Google Forms. We performed a manual thematic analysis to identify the major reasons for using/not using EpiData. RESULTS: Of 46 participants, 38 (83%) responded. Of 31 participants involved in research, 17 (55%) had used EpiData, of whom 6 (35%) had performed double entry and validation. Of the 14 who did not use EpiData, 11 had used MS Excel or SPSS/Epi Info for data entry. Of the 38 respondents, 29 (76%) had taught EpiData to other colleagues and students. Reasons for using EpiData included its user-friendliness, its being open access and the ease in preventing data entry errors. Reasons for not performing double entry included lack of time and manpower. CONCLUSION: The short course on EpiData was effective in knowledge transfer and provides a scalable model for incorporation into the teaching curricula of medical schools and research institutions.
SETTING: Training courses on data entry are few and far between compared to analysis. To address this gap, we conducted a short 2-day course on quality-assured data capture using EpiData for public health professionals in Bangalore and Puducherry, India, in 2013. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of participants who used EpiData and taught the software to others during the 2-years after training and explore the reasons for doing/not doing so. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with self-administered, semi-structured questionnaire developed using web-based Google Forms. We performed a manual thematic analysis to identify the major reasons for using/not using EpiData. RESULTS: Of 46 participants, 38 (83%) responded. Of 31 participants involved in research, 17 (55%) had used EpiData, of whom 6 (35%) had performed double entry and validation. Of the 14 who did not use EpiData, 11 had used MS Excel or SPSS/Epi Info for data entry. Of the 38 respondents, 29 (76%) had taught EpiData to other colleagues and students. Reasons for using EpiData included its user-friendliness, its being open access and the ease in preventing data entry errors. Reasons for not performing double entry included lack of time and manpower. CONCLUSION: The short course on EpiData was effective in knowledge transfer and provides a scalable model for incorporation into the teaching curricula of medical schools and research institutions.
Authors: P M Bossuyt; J B Reitsma; D E Bruns; C A Gatsonis; P P Glasziou; L M Irwig; J G Lijmer; D Moher; D Rennie; H C W de Vet Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 11.069