| Literature DB >> 26817635 |
Suzana Brown1, Patrick McSharry2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We evaluate and compare manually collected paper records against electronic records for monitoring the weights of children under the age of 5.Entities:
Keywords: NUTRITION & DIETETICS; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; PUBLIC HEALTH
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26817635 PMCID: PMC4735129 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Data quality dimensions
| Data quality dimension | Subdimension | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Intrinsic | Accuracy | Data correct |
| Contextual | Completeness | Values present |
| Representational | Interoperability | Language and unit correct |
| Accessibility | Accessibility | Easy to retrieve |
| Additional digital data timeliness capability | Feedback | Two-way communication |
Description of paper, electronic and WHO data sets used for model evaluation
| Data name | Description |
|---|---|
| Paper data | Data were obtained by recording children's weight from the CHWs’ books in an Excel spread sheet. Data contain information on weight and age for 320 boys and 380 girls. Those individual records are kept by the same CHWs participating in the case study |
| Electronic data | In the case study, 24 participating CHWs collected data using a custom made smart phone mobile application. By the end of the study, they collected data for 922 girls and 886 boys who live in their district. The data were collected over 9 months, and most of the data are cross-sectional, with about 330 children with time-series data for 3–6 consecutive months |
| WHO data | The WHO study was carried out in six different countries: Brazil, Ghana, India, Norway, Oman and the USA, in year 2006. The WHO standards are based on a longitudinal study of 882 children aged 0–24 months and on cross-sectional studies of 6669 children aged 18–71 months |
CHWs, community health workers.
Training and testing data sets, model parameter estimates and goodness of fit measured by cross-validation for Rwandan girls
| Evaluation | Training data | Testing data | Model | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Paper records | Paper records | log(weight)=0.70+0.26×log(age) | 0.37 |
| B | Electronic records | Electronic records | log(weight)=0.69+0.28×log(age) | 0.56 |
| C | Simulated data from WHO chart | Simulated data from WHO chart | log(weight)=0.56+0.37×log(age) | 0.92* |
| D | Simulated data from WHO chart | Electronic records | log(weight)=0.56+0.37×log(age) | 0.54 |
*In the evaluation of the WHO chart, the goodness of fit (R2) is very high because the same model is used to simulate both the training and testing data.
Figure 1Hanging scales used by community health workers for child weight measurement.
Figure 2Electronic and paper data for Rwanda girls.
Figure 3Electronic and paper data for Rwanda boys.
R2 values for the model—log(weight)=a+b log(age), for boys and girl using electronic and paper collection
| Gender | Rwanda Electronic | Rwanda Paper | Gain in R2 due to electronic approach (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Girls | 0.56 | 0.37 | 51 |
| Boys | 0.58 | 0.35 | 66 |
MAE and MAPE of regression model evaluated using paper and electronic data sets for Rwandan girls
| Performance metric | Rwanda Electronic (Evaluation B) | Rwanda Paper (Evaluation A) | Reduction in error of electronic over paper data (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | 1.4 kg | 2.4 kg | 40 |
| MAPE | 12% | 21% | 42 |
MAE, mean absolute error; MAPE, mean absolute percentage error.
Figure 4Three growth charts based to three different data sets for Rwandan girls.
Performance of Evaluation B and D for Rwandan girls
| Metric | WHO model (Evaluation D) | Rwanda Electronic (Evaluation B) | Reduction in error of Electronic model over WHO model (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | 1.5 kg | 1.4 kg | 7 |
| MAPE | 13.2% | 12% | 10 |
MAE, mean absolute error; MAPE, mean absolute percentage error.
Figure 5Mean absolute error (MAE) for paper and electronic method.