Electronic Data Capture System (REDCap) for Health Care Research and Training in a Resource-Constrained Environment: Technology Adoption Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic data capture (EDC) in academic health care organizations provides an opportunity for the management, aggregation, and secondary use of research and clinical data. It is especially important in resource-constrained environments such as the South African public health care sector, where paper records are still the main form of clinical record keeping. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the strategies followed by the University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences (Wits FHS) during the period from 2013 to 2021 to overcome resistance to, and encourage the adoption of, the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Vanderbilt University) system by academic and clinical staff. REDCap has found wide use in varying domains, including clinical studies and research projects as well as administrative, financial, and human resource applications. Given REDCap's global footprint in >5000 institutions worldwide and potential for future growth, the strategies followed by the Wits FHS to support users and encourage adoption may be of importance to others using the system, particularly in resource-constrained settings. METHODS: The strategies to support users and encourage adoption included top-down organizational support; secure and reliable application, hosting infrastructure, and systems administration; an enabling and accessible REDCap support team; regular hands-on training workshops covering REDCap project setup and data collection instrument design techniques; annual local symposia to promote networking and awareness of all the latest software features and best practices for using them; participation in REDCap Consortium activities; and regular and ongoing mentorship from members of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center. RESULTS: During the period from 2013 to 2021, the use of the REDCap EDC system by individuals at the Wits FHS increased, respectively, from 129 active user accounts to 3447 active user accounts. The number of REDCap projects increased from 149 in 2013 to 12,865 in 2021. REDCap at Wits also supported various publications and research outputs, including journal articles and postgraduate monographs. As of 2020, a total of 233 journal articles and 87 postgraduate monographs acknowledged the use of the Wits REDCap system. CONCLUSIONS: By providing reliable infrastructure and accessible support resources, we were able to successfully implement and grow the REDCap EDC system at the Wits FHS and its associated academic medical centers. We believe that the increase in the use of REDCap was driven by offering a dependable, secure service with a strong end-user training and support model. This model may be applied by other academic and health care organizations in resource-constrained environments planning to implement EDC technology.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".