ā†“ Skip to main content

Implementation and results of an integrated data quality assurance protocol in a randomized controlled trial in Uttar Pradesh, India

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementation and results of an integrated data quality assurance protocol in a randomized controlled trial in Uttar Pradesh, India
Published in
Trials, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2159-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathon D. Gass, Anamika Misra, Mahendra Nath Singh Yadav, Fatima Sana, Chetna Singh, Anup Mankar, Brandon J. Neal, Jennifer Fisher-Bowman, Jenny Maisonneuve, Megan Marx Delaney, Krishan Kumar, Vinay Pratap Singh, Narender Sharma, Atul Gawande, Katherine Semrau, Lisa R. Hirschhorn

Abstract

There are few published standards or methodological guidelines for integrating Data Quality Assurance (DQA) protocols into large-scale health systems research trials, especially in resource-limited settings. The BetterBirth Trial is a matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the BetterBirth Program, which seeks to improve quality of facility-based deliveries and reduce 7-day maternal and neonatal mortality and maternal morbidity in Uttar Pradesh, India. In the trial, over 6300 deliveries were observed and over 153,000 mother-baby pairs across 120 study sites were followed to assess health outcomes. We designed and implemented a robust and integrated DQA system to sustain high-quality data throughout the trial. We designed the Data Quality Monitoring and Improvement System (DQMIS) to reinforce six dimensions of data quality: accuracy, reliability, timeliness, completeness, precision, and integrity. The DQMIS was comprised of five functional components: 1) a monitoring and evaluation team to support the system; 2) a DQA protocol, including data collection audits and targets, rapid data feedback, and supportive supervision; 3) training; 4) standard operating procedures for data collection; and 5) an electronic data collection and reporting system. Routine audits by supervisors included double data entry, simultaneous delivery observations, and review of recorded calls to patients. Data feedback reports identified errors automatically, facilitating supportive supervision through a continuous quality improvement model. The five functional components of the DQMIS successfully reinforced data reliability, timeliness, completeness, precision, and integrity. The DQMIS also resulted in 98.33% accuracy across all data collection activities in the trial. All data collection activities demonstrated improvement in accuracy throughout implementation. Data collectors demonstrated a statistically significant (pā€‰=ā€‰0.0004) increase in accuracy throughout consecutive audits. The DQMIS was successful, despite an increase from 20 to 130 data collectors. In the absence of widely disseminated data quality methods and standards for large RCT interventions in limited-resource settings, we developed an integrated DQA system, combining auditing, rapid data feedback, and supportive supervision, which ensured high-quality data and could serve as a model for future health systems research trials. Future efforts should focus on standardization of DQA processes for health systems research. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02148952 . Registered on 13 February 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 37 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 41 30%