Reliability of Self-Reported Mobile Phone Ownership in Rural North-Central Nigeria: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: mHealth practitioners seek to leverage the ubiquity of the mobile phone to increase the impact and robustness of their interventions, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, data on the reliability of self-reported mobile phone access is minimal. OBJECTIVE: We sought to ascertain the reliability of self-reported ownership of and access to mobile phones among a population of rural dwellers in north-central Nigeria. METHODS: We contacted participants in a community-based HIV testing program by phone to determine actual as opposed to self-reported mobile phone access. A phone script was designed to conduct these calls and descriptive analyses conducted on the findings. RESULTS: We dialed 349 numbers: 110 (31.5%) were answered by participants who self-reported ownership of the mobile phone; 123 (35.2%) of the phone numbers did not ring at all; 28 (8.0%) rang but were not answered; and 88 (25.2%) were answered by someone other than the participant. We reached a higher proportion of male participants (68/133, 51.1%) than female participants (42/216, 19.4%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported access to mobile phones in rural and low-income areas in north-central Nigeria is higher than actual access. This has implications for mHealth programming, particularly for women's health. mHealth program implementers and researchers need to be cognizant of the low reliability of self-reported mobile phone access. These observations should therefore affect sample-size calculations and, where possible, alternative means of reaching research participants and program beneficiaries should be established.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".