Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Aug 25;8(8):e15284.
doi: 10.2196/15284.

Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial

Diana M Bond  1 , Jeremy Hammond  2 , Antonia W Shand  3   4 , Natasha Nassar  1   3
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparing a Mobile Phone Automated System With a Paper and Email Data Collection System: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial

Diana M Bond et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Background: Traditional data collection methods using paper and email are increasingly being replaced by data collection using mobile phones, although there is limited evidence evaluating the impact of mobile phone technology as part of an automated research management system on data collection and health outcomes.

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare a web-based mobile phone automated system (MPAS) with a more traditional delivery and data collection system combining paper and email data collection (PEDC) in a cohort of breastfeeding women.

Methods: We conducted a substudy of a randomized controlled trial in Sydney, Australia, which included women with uncomplicated term births who intended to breastfeed. Women were recruited within 72 hours of giving birth. A quasi-randomized number of women were recruited using the PEDC system, and the remainder were recruited using the MPAS. The outcomes assessed included the effectiveness of data collection, impact on study outcomes, response rate, acceptability, and cost analysis between the MPAS and PEDC methods.

Results: Women were recruited between April 2015 and December 2016. The analysis included 555 women: 471 using the MPAS and 84 using the PEDC. There were no differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. At the end of the 8-week treatment phase, the MPAS group showed an increased response rate compared with the PEDC group (56% vs 37%; P<.001), which was also seen at the 2-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. At the 2-month follow-up, the MPAS participants also showed an increased rate of self-reported treatment compliance (70% vs 56%; P<.001) and a higher recommendation rate for future use (95% vs 64%; P<.001) as compared with the PEDC group. The cost analysis between the 2 groups was comparable.

Conclusions: MPAS is an effective and acceptable method for improving the overall management, treatment compliance, and methodological quality of clinical research to ensure the validity and reliability of findings.

Keywords: breastfeeding; clinical trial; data collection methods; maternal health; mobile phones; text messaging.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram comparing the mobile phone automated system with paper and email data collection. MPAS: mobile phone automated system; PEDC: paper and email data collection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effectiveness of data collection between the mobile phone automated system and the paper and email data collection. MPAS: mobile phone automated system; PEDC: paper and email data collection.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Treatment compliance and satisfaction for the mobile phone automated system (n=555).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries. Control Clin Trials. 2003 Apr;24(2):182–99. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(02)00320-3.S0197245602003203 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials. 2004;1(4):368–76. doi: 10.1191/1740774504cn032oa. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jüni P, Altman D, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Br Med J. 2001 Jul 7;323(7303):42–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/11440947 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sibbald B, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials. Why are randomised controlled trials important? Br Med J. 1998 Jan 17;316(7126):201. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7126.201. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/9468688 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sanson-Fisher RW, Bonevski B, Green LW, D'Este C. Limitations of the randomized controlled trial in evaluating population-based health interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Aug;33(2):155–61. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.007.S0749-3797(07)00225-5 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types