@Article{信息:doi 10.2196 / / jmir。2906，作者=“Li, Ye和Wang, Wei和van Velthoven, Michelle Helena和Chen, Li和Car, Josip和Rudan, Igor和Zhang, Yanfeng和Wu, Qiong和Du, Xiaozhen和Scherpbier, Robert W”，标题=“监测中国农村婴儿喂养干预计划的短信数据收集:可行性研究”，期刊=“J医学互联网研究”，年=“2013”，月=“12”，日=“04”，卷=“15”，数=“12”，页=“e269”，关键词=“短信;数据收集;项目评估;背景:有效的数据收集方法对于高质量监测健康干预措施至关重要。传统的面对面数据采集方法劳动密集型、成本高、耗时长。随着移动电话用户的快速增加，短信有可能被用于评估中国农村人口健康干预措施。目的:本研究的目的是探索使用短信作为数据收集工具来监测婴儿喂养干预计划的可行性。方法:参与者是中国农村0至23个月儿童的照顾者，他们参加了婴儿喂养健康教育项目。我们使用了测试-再测试的方法。 First, we collected data with a text messaging survey and then with a face-to-face survey for 2 periods of 3 days. We compared the response rate, data agreement, costs, and participants' acceptability of the two methods. Also, we interviewed participants to explore their reasons for not responding to the text messages and the reasons for disagreement in the two methods. In addition, we evaluated the most appropriate time during the day for sending text messages. Results: We included 258 participants; 99 (38.4{\%}) participated in the text messaging survey and 177 (68.6{\%}) in the face-to-face survey. Compared with the face-to-face survey, the text messaging survey had much lower response rates to at least one question (38.4{\%} vs 68.6{\%}) and to all 7 questions (27.9{\%} vs 67.4{\%}) with moderate data agreement (most kappa values between .5 and .75, the intraclass correlation coefficients between .53 to .72). Participants who took part in both surveys gave the same acceptability rating for both methods (median 4.0 for both on a 5-point scale, 1=disliked very much and 5=liked very much). The costs per questionnaire for the text messaging method were much lower than the costs for the face-to-face method: {\textyen}19.7 (US {\$}3.13) versus {\textyen}33.9 (US {\$}5.39) for all questionnaires, and {\textyen}27.1 (US {\$}4.31) versus {\textyen}34.4 (US {\$}5.47) for completed questionnaires. The main reasons for not replying were that participants did not receive text messages, they were too busy to reply, or they did not see text messages in time. The main reasons for disagreement in responses were that participants forgot their answers in the text messaging survey and that they changed their minds. We found that participants were more likely to reply to text messages immediately during 2 time periods: 8 AM to 3 PM and 8 PM to 9 PM. Conclusions: The text messaging method had reasonable data agreement and low cost, but a low response rate. Further research is needed to evaluate effectiveness of measures that can increase the response rate, especially in collecting longitudinal data by text messaging. ", issn="14388871", doi="10.2196/jmir.2906", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2013/12/e269/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2906", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24305514" }