BackgroundMobile electronic devices are replacing paper-based instruments and questionnaires for epidemiological and public health research. The elimination of a data-entry step after an interview is a notable advantage over paper, saving investigator time, decreasing the time lags in managing and analyzing data, and potentially improving the data quality by removing the error-prone data-entry step. Research has not yet provided adequate evidence, however, to substantiate the claim of fewer errors for computerized interviews.MethodologyWe developed an Android-based illness explanatory interview for influenza vaccine acceptance and tested the instrument in a field study in Pune, India, for feasibility and acceptability. Error rates for tablet and paper were compared with reference to the voice recording of the interview as gold standard to assess discrepancies. We also examined the preference of interviewers for the classical paper-based or the electronic version of the interview and compared the costs of research with both data collection devices.ResultsIn 95 interviews with household respondents, total error rates with paper and tablet devices were nearly the same (2.01% and 1.99% respectively). Most interviewers indicated no preference for a particular device; but those with a preference opted for tablets. The initial investment in tablet-based interviews was higher compared to paper, while the recurring costs per interview were lower with the use of tablets.ConclusionAn Android-based tablet version of a complex interview was developed and successfully validated. Advantages were not compromised by increased errors, and field research assistants with a preference preferred the Android device. Use of tablets may be more costly than paper for small samples and less costly for large studies.

No abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends antenatal influenza vaccination (AIV) for pregnant women at any stage of pregnancy. This study assessed fundamental aspects of AIV acceptance and demand among key stakeholders in urban Pune, India. Semi-structured interviews for rapid ethnographic assessment of AIV-related awareness, priorities, and practices were used to study clinicians and their communities of practice. A qualitative survey was conducted among 16 private clinicians providing antenatal care (ANC) in slum and middle-class areas of Pune. Following the survey, clinicians were informed about authoritative AIV recommendations. A qualitative community survey was also conducted with 60 women aged 20-35 years and 30 spouses from the same slum and middle-class practice areas of the ANC providers. Subsequently, a second clinician survey was conducted to assess changes in clinicians' awareness, priority, and vaccination practice. After this interview, clinicians were informed of community survey findings. Most community respondents were unaware of AIV, in contrast with well-known and widely used antenatal tetanus vaccination. They expressed confidence in vaccines and trust in the clinicians. Clinicians' advice was reportedly the most important determinant of community vaccine acceptance. Clinicians were confident of the safety of AIV and they anticipated patients' acceptance if recommended. The second clinician interview showed increased awareness of AIV policy, but clinicians were more skeptical about the severity of maternal influenza in their practice. Our findings indicate community acceptance though not demand for AIV. We recommend five essential elements for vaccination program strategies to improve coverage with AIV and other ANC vaccines.