Designing Electronic Data Capture Systems for Sustainability in Low-Resource Settings: Viewpoint With Lessons Learned From Ethiopia and Myanmar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic data capture (EDC) is a crucial component in the design, evaluation, and sustainment of population health interventions. Low-resource settings, however, present unique challenges for developing a robust EDC system due to limited financial capital, differences in technological infrastructure, and insufficient involvement of those who understand the local context. Current literature focuses on the evaluation of health interventions using EDC but does not provide an in-depth description of the systems used or how they are developed. In this viewpoint, we present case descriptions from 2 low- and middle-income countries: Ethiopia and Myanmar. We address a gap in evidence by describing each EDC system in detail and discussing the pros and cons of different approaches. We then present common lessons learned from the 2 case descriptions as recommendations for considerations in developing and implementing EDC in low-resource settings, using a sociotechnical framework for studying health information technology in complex adaptive health care systems. Our recommendations highlight the importance of selecting hardware compatible with local infrastructure, using flexible software systems that facilitate communication across different languages and levels of literacy, and conducting iterative, participatory design with individuals with deep knowledge of local clinical and cultural norms.
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 | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".