Methodological and Ethical Implications of Using Remote Data Collection Tools to Measure Sexual and Reproductive Health and Gender-Based Violence Outcomes among Women and Girls in Humanitarian and Fragile Settings: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review of Peer-Reviewed Research

Purpose: This systematic review investigates the methodological and ethical implications of using remote data collection tools to measure sexual/reproductive health (SRH) and gender-based violence (GBV) outcomes among women and girls in humanitarian and fragile settings. Methods: We included empiric...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Trauma, violence & abuse Vol. 24; no. 4; pp. 2498 - 2529
Main Authors: Vahedi, Luissa, Qushua, Najat, Seff, Ilana, Doering, Michelle, Stoll, Carrie, Bartels, Susan A., Stark, Lindsay
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.10.2023
Sage Publications Ltd
Subjects:
Academic staff
Aggression
Applications programs
Communications technology
Data collection
Ethics
Extraction
Females
Gender
Gender-based violence
Girls
Health status
Humanitarianism
Information technology
Internet access
Interpersonal communication
Literacy
Measures
Mixed methods research
Mobile computing
Peer review
Polls & surveys
Quality assessment
Reproductive health
Research methodology
Review Manuscripts
Sampling
Sexual behavior
Sexual health
Short message service
Software
Surveys
Systematic review
Violence
Women
gender based violence
sexual reproductive health
remote data collection
fragile setting
ethics
systematic review
measurement
humanitarian setting
ISSN:1524-8380, 1552-8324, 1552-8324
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose: This systematic review investigates the methodological and ethical implications of using remote data collection tools to measure sexual/reproductive health (SRH) and gender-based violence (GBV) outcomes among women and girls in humanitarian and fragile settings. Methods: We included empirical studies of all design types that collected any self-reported primary data related to SRH/GBV using information and communication technology, in the absence of in-person interactions, from women and girls in humanitarian and fragile settings. The search was run in March 2021 without filters or limits in Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Scopus. Quality was assessed using an adapted version of the MMAT tool. Two reviewers independently determined whether each full text source met the eligibility criteria, and conflicts were resolved through consensus. A-priori extraction fields concerned methodological rigor and ethical considerations. Results: 21 total studies were included. The majority of studies were quantitative descriptive, aiming to ascertain prevalence. Telephone interviews, online surveys, and mobile applications, SMS surveys, and online discussion forums were used as remote data collection tools. Key methodological considerations included the overuse of non-probability samples, lack of a defined sampling frame, the introduction of bias by making eligibility contingent on owning/accessing technology, and the lack of qualitative probing. Ethical consideration pertained to including persons with low literacy, participant safety, use of referral services, and the gender digital divide. Conclusion: Findings are intended to guide SRH/GBV researchers and academics in critically assessing methodological and ethical implications of using remote data collection tools to measure SRH and GBV in humanitarian and fragile settings.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Undefined-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ISSN:1524-8380
1552-8324
1552-8324
DOI:10.1177/15248380221097439