Display options
Cite
Kumar AM, Chinnakali P, Shewade H, et al. Short EpiData course: do participants use the data entry tool two years post-training?. Public Health Action. 2015;5(4):261-5doi: 10.5588/pha.15.0034.
Kumar, A. M., Chinnakali, P., Shewade, H., Gupta, V., Nagpal, P., & Harries, A. D. (2015). Short EpiData course: do participants use the data entry tool two years post-training?. Public health action, 5(4), 261-5. https://doi.org/10.5588/pha.15.0034
Kumar, A M V, et al. "Short EpiData course: do participants use the data entry tool two years post-training?." Public health action vol. 5,4 (2015): 261-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.5588/pha.15.0034
Kumar AM, Chinnakali P, Shewade H, Gupta V, Nagpal P, Harries AD. Short EpiData course: do participants use the data entry tool two years post-training?. Public Health Action. 2015 Dec 21;5(4):261-5. doi: 10.5588/pha.15.0034. Epub 2015 Nov 12. PMID: 26767181; PMCID: PMC4682619.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Public Health Action. 2015 Dec 21;5(4):261-5. doi: 10.5588/pha.15.0034. Epub 2015 Nov 12.

Short EpiData course: do participants use the data entry tool two years post-training?.

Public health action

A M V Kumar, P Chinnakali, H Shewade, V Gupta, P Nagpal, A D Harries

Affiliations

  1. International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union), South-East Asia Office, New Delhi, India.
  2. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
  3. The Union, Paris, France ; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

PMID: 26767181 PMCID: PMC4682619 DOI: 10.5588/pha.15.0034

Abstract

SETTING: Training courses on data entry are few and far between compared to analysis. To address this gap, we conducted a short 2-day course on quality-assured data capture using EpiData for public health professionals in Bangalore and Puducherry, India, in 2013.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of participants who used EpiData and taught the software to others during the 2-years after training and explore the reasons for doing/not doing so.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with self-administered, semi-structured questionnaire developed using web-based Google Forms. We performed a manual thematic analysis to identify the major reasons for using/not using EpiData.

RESULTS: Of 46 participants, 38 (83%) responded. Of 31 participants involved in research, 17 (55%) had used EpiData, of whom 6 (35%) had performed double entry and validation. Of the 14 who did not use EpiData, 11 had used MS Excel or SPSS/Epi Info for data entry. Of the 38 respondents, 29 (76%) had taught EpiData to other colleagues and students. Reasons for using EpiData included its user-friendliness, its being open access and the ease in preventing data entry errors. Reasons for not performing double entry included lack of time and manpower.

CONCLUSION: The short course on EpiData was effective in knowledge transfer and provides a scalable model for incorporation into the teaching curricula of medical schools and research institutions.

References

  1. PLoS Med. 2007 Oct 16;4(10):e297 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Nurs. 2012 Oct;21(19-20):2730-5 - PubMed
  3. BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jan 27;5:75 - PubMed
  4. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Nov;9(11):711-7 - PubMed
  5. Public Health Action. 2013 Mar 21;3(1):60-2 - PubMed
  6. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2009 Oct;13(10):1219-23 - PubMed
  7. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35087 - PubMed
  8. Clin Radiol. 2003 Aug;58(8):575-80 - PubMed
  9. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Mar;15(3):296-304 - PubMed
  10. Control Clin Trials. 2003 Oct;24(5):560-9 - PubMed
  11. Trials. 2011 Mar 22;12:85 - PubMed
  12. Int J Surg. 2011;9(8):672-7 - PubMed

Publication Types