| Literature DB >> 27832116 |
Andrew Reid Bell1, Patrick S Ward2, Mary E Killilea1, Md Ehsanul Haque Tamal3.
Abstract
The advent of cheap smartphones in rural areas across the globe presents an opportunity to change the mode with which researchers engage hard-to-reach populations. In particular, smartphones allow researchers to connect with respondents more frequently than standard household surveys, opening a new window into important short-term variability in key measures of household and community wellbeing. In this paper, we present early results from a pilot study in rural Bangladesh using a 'microtasks for micropayments' model to collect a range of community and household living standards data using Android smartphones. We find that more frequent task repetition with shorter recall periods leads to more inclusive reporting, improved capture of intra-seasonal variability, and earlier signals of events such as illness. Payments in the form of mobile talk time and data provide a positive development externality in the form of expanded access to mobile internet and social networks. Taken to scale, programs such as this have potential to transform data collection in rural areas, providing near-real-time windows into the development of markets, the spread of illnesses, or the diffusion of ideas and innovations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27832116 PMCID: PMC5104491 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165924
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study Area.
Fig 2Sample selection pathway.
Sample characteristics, compared against a representative Rangpur Sample, and the Bangladesh average.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic variable | This Study (2016) | Rangpur Division (household-head) (2011) [ | Bangladesh average (2015) [ |
| Average Age | 32.9 (11.8) | 44.2 (13.79) | 26.3 |
| Sex Ratio (Male to Female) | 8.53 | 10.44 | 0.91 |
| Average Years of Education | 9.88 (3.71) | 3.45 (4.42) | 10 |
| Fraction of sample identifying as literate (able to read and write) | 0.89 | 0.45 | 0.615 |
*Median age.
Standard deviations in parentheses.
Fig 3Custom interface presents tasks to participants.
Selecting an available task (at left) launches the task in ODK (at right).
Selected differences across task frequency.
| (Recall period in parentheses) | ||||||
| (Season) | (Month) | (Week) | ||||
| Household daily labor hours (per day-household) | 9.1393 | M,W | 22.0649 | S,W | 53.6065 | S,M |
| Household wage rate (Taka per hour) | 40.6006 | W | 17.1266 | W | 9.6422 | S,M |
| (Season) (84 Respondents) | (Month) (265 Respondents) | |||||
| Expected risk of flood occurrence during recall period (Scale 1 to 5) | 1.7159 | M | 1.2066 | S | ||
| Expected flood damage over recall period (Scale 1 to 5) | 1.875 | - | 1.8212 | - | ||
| Expected risk of drought occurrence during recall period (Scale 1 to 5) | 2.8295 | - | 2.5972 | - | ||
| Expected drought damage over recall period (Scale 1 to 5) | 2.375 | M | 2.1337 | S | ||
| Expected risk of cyclone occurrence during recall period (Scale 1 to 5) | 2 | M | 1.2552 | S | ||
| Expected cyclone damage over recall period (Scale 1 to 5) | 2.3068 | M | 1.9253 | S | ||
| (Season) (84 Respondents) | (Month, summed over all months in season) (265 Respondents) | |||||
| Fraction of participants reporting flood over previous season | 0.2738 | M | 0.0943 | S | ||
| Fraction of participants reporting drought over previous season | 0.5595 | M | 0.7698 | S | ||
| Fraction of participants reporting cyclone over previous season | 0 | M | 0.0453 | S | ||
| (Week) (137 Respondents) | (Week) (196 Respondents) | (Week) (83 Respondents) | ||||
| Variation in reported water quality along study period (Variance of Scale 1 to 5) | 0.0398 | M,W | 0.3372 | S,W | 0.4589 | S,M |
S: Significantly different from Season result; M: Significantly different from Month result; W: Significantly different from Week Result (Using Chi-Square test (proportions) or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (means) at 95%).
*Averaged across respondents.
Based on 13 weeks of data.
Fig 4Average reported length of school absence due to illness in households.
Fig 5Box-whisker plot showing quartile distribution of years of education by week in the crowdsourced sample, as well as weekly average and best-fit (Tobit) regression, through week 15 of data collection.
Best fit line from Tobit regression has a slope of -0.078 (years education per week), significant at p = 0.001.
Fig 6Response rate to tasks as function of a) task value and b) week. Tasks are valued on a scale of 1 to 5, with each increment worth an additional 10MB of data and 5 Taka (0.06 USD) in talk time.