| Literature DB >> 36243698 |
William H Elson1, Anna B Kawiecki2, Nicole L Achee3, Amy C Morrison1, Marisa A P Donnelly1, Arnold O Noriega1, Jody K Simpson1, Din Syafruddin4, Ismail Ekoprayitno Rozi4, Neil F Lobo3, Christopher M Barker1, Thomas W Scott1.
Abstract
Vector-borne diseases are among the most burdensome infectious diseases worldwide with high burden to health systems in developing regions in the tropics. For many of these diseases, vector control to reduce human biting rates or arthropod populations remains the primary strategy for prevention. New vector control interventions intended to be marketed through public health channels must be assessed by the World Health Organization for public health value using data generated from large-scale trials integrating epidemiological endpoints of human health impact. Such phase III trials typically follow large numbers of study subjects to meet necessary power requirements for detecting significant differences between treatment arms, thereby generating substantive and complex datasets. Data is often gathered directly in the field, in resource-poor settings, leading to challenges in efficient data reporting and/or quality assurance. With advancing technology, mobile data collection (MDC) systems have been implemented in many studies to overcome these challenges. Here we describe the development and implementation of a MDC system during a randomized-cluster, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the protective efficacy of a spatial repellent intervention in reducing human infection with Aedes-borne viruses (ABV) in the urban setting of Iquitos, Peru, as well as the data management system that supported it. We discuss the benefits, remaining capacity gaps and the key lessons learned from using a MDC system in this context in detail.Entities:
Keywords: Aedes aegypti; Clinical trial; CommCare; Data monitoring; Data quality; Dengue; Mobile data collection; Spatial repellent; Vector control
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36243698 PMCID: PMC9571464 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14301-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 4.135
Fig. 1MDC application development and optimization: 1) Initial development; 2) Pilot test in the trial environment by a reduced number of field workers (first feedback loop); 3) Hands-on demonstration and training in the lab/office (second feedback loop); 4) Training and beta-testing in trial environment (third feedback loop); 5) Final deployment
Fig. 2Overview of data flow, validation, and integration framework
Total number of uploaded forms per month during the Iquitos, Peru trial and median time to completion for data entry using each form
| App | Form | Total No. forms | Median forms/month (IQR) | Median form completion time in seconds (IQR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM | Surveillance visit | 297,983 | 14,562 (11,189-19,384) | 7 (6–12) |
| IM | Change | 105,493 | 3710 (2983-4160) | 8 (6–11) |
| SM | Census | 9267 | 422 (81–524) | 97 (71–144) |
| IM | Calculator | 3037 | 28 (17–56) | 32 (10–91) |
| IM | Removal | 2804 | 26 (20–52) | 6 (4–16) |
| IM | Deployment | 2432 | 36 (20–58) | 96 (59–156) |
| SM | Adverse event | 129 | 3 (2–23) | 214 (130–321) |
|