Can local staff reliably assess their own programs? A confirmatory test-retest study of Lot Quality Assurance Sampling data collectors in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Data collection techniques that routinely provide health system information at the local level are in demand and needed. LQAS is intended for use by local health teams to collect data at the district and sub-district levels. Our question is whether local health staff produce biased results as they are responsible for implementing the programs they also assess. METHODS: This test-retest study replicates on a larger scale an earlier LQAS reliability assessment in Uganda. We conducted in two districts an LQAS survey using 15 local health staff as data collectors. A week later, the data collectors swapped districts, where they acted as disinterested non-local data collectors, repeating the LQAS survey with the same respondents. We analysed the resulting two data sets for agreement using Cohens' Kappa. RESULTS: The average Kappa score for the knowledge indicators was k = 0.43 (SD = 0.16) and for practice indicators k = 0.63 (SD = 0.17). These scores show moderate agreement for knowledge indicators and substantial agreement for practice indicators. Analyses confirm that respondents were more knowledgeable on retest; no evidence of bias was found for practice indicators. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study are remarkably similar to those produced in the first reliability study. There is no evidence that using local healthcare staff to collect LQAS data biases data collection in an LQAS study. The bias observed in the knowledge indicators was most likely due to a 'practice effect', whereby respondents increased their knowledge as a result of completing the first survey; no corresponding effect was seen in the practice indicators.

Can health workers reliably assess their own work? A test-retest study of bias among data collectors conducting a Lot Quality Assurance Sampling survey in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) is a classification method that enables local health staff to assess health programmes for which they are responsible. While LQAS has been favourably reviewed by the World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO), questions remain about whether using local health staff as data collectors can lead to biased data. METHODS: In this test-retest research, Pallisa Health District in Uganda is subdivided into four administrative units called supervision areas (SA). Data collectors from each SA conducted an LQAS survey. A week later, the data collectors were swapped to a different SA, outside their area of responsibility, to repeat the LQAS survey with the same respondents. The two data sets were analysed for agreement using Cohens' kappa coefficient and disagreements were analysed. RESULTS: Kappa values ranged from 0.19 to 0.97. On average, there was a moderate degree of agreement for knowledge indicators and a substantial level for practice indicators. Respondents were found to be systematically more knowledgeable on retest indicating bias favouring the retest, although no evidence of bias was found for practices indicators. CONCLUSIONS: In this initial study, using local health care providers to collect data did not bias data collection. The bias observed in the knowledge indicators is most likely due to the 'practice effect', whereby respondents increased their knowledge as a result of completing the first survey, as no corresponding effect was seen in the practices indicators.