Performance and resource requirements of in-person versus voice call versus automated telephone-based socioeconomic data collection modalities for community-based health programmes: a systematic review protocol

Allen, L. N. et al. (2022) Performance and resource requirements of in-person versus voice call versus automated telephone-based socioeconomic data collection modalities for community-based health programmes: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open, 12(4), e057410. (doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057410) (PMID:35428640)

Abstract

Introduction: Gathering data on socioeconomic status (SES) is a prerequisite for any health programme that aims to assess and improve the equitable distribution of its outcomes. Many different modalities can be used to collect SES data, ranging from (1) face-to-face elicitation, to (2) telephone-administered questionnaires, to (3) automated text message-based systems. The relative costs and perceived benefits to patients and providers of these different data collection approaches is unknown. This protocol is for a systematic review that aims to compare the resource requirements, performance characteristics, and acceptability to participants and service providers of these three approaches to collect SES data from those enrolled in health programmes. Methods and analysis: An information specialist will conduct searches on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and OpenGrey. All databases will be searched from 1999 to present with no language limits used. We will also search Google Scholar and check the reference lists of relevant articles for further potentially eligible studies. Any empirical study design will be eligible if it compares two or more modalities to elicit SES data from the following three; in-person, voice call, or automated phone-based systems. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles; and complete data extraction. For each study, we will extract data on the modality characteristics, primary outcomes (response rate and equivalence) and secondary outcomes (time, costs and acceptability to patients and providers). We will synthesise findings thematically without meta-analysis. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required, as our review will include published and publicly accessible data. This review is part of a project to improve equitable access to eye care services in low-ioncome and middle-income countries. However, the findings will be useful to policy-makers and programme managers in a range of health settings and non-health settings. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop an accessible summary of results for website posting and stakeholder meetings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021251959.

• Item Type: Articles
• Additional Information: This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust and NIHR grant number 215633/Z/19/Z. The study was sponsored by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
• Status: Published
• Refereed: Yes
• Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: Blane, Dr David
• Authors: Allen, L. N., Mackinnon, S., Gordon, I., Blane, D., Marques, A. P., Gichuhi, S., Mwangi, A., Burton, M. J., Bolster, N., Macleod, D., Kim, M., Ramke, J., and Bastawrous, A.
• College/School: College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Health & Wellbeing > General Practice and Primary Care
• Journal Name: BMJ Open
• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
• ISSN: 2044-6055
• ISSN (Online): 2044-6055
• Published Online: 15 April 2022
• Copyright Holders: Copyright © 2022 The Authors
• First Published: First published in BMJ Open 12(4): e057410
• Publisher Policy: Reproduced under a Creative Commons License