Peer-reviewed article
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
Luissa Vahedi, Najat Qushua, Ilana Seff, Michelle M. Doering, Carrie Stoll et al. ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This systematic review examined how researchers use remote tools like phone interviews, online surveys, and mobile apps to measure sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence outcomes among women and girls in humanitarian and fragile settings. The review of 21 studies found significant methodological problems, including over-reliance on non-probability sampling and bias from requiring technology access. Ethical concerns included risks to participant safety, exclusion of people with low literacy, and unequal access to technology. The review provides guidance for researchers on how to better design and conduct remote data collection on sensitive topics in difficult contexts.
Key points
- Most included studies used quantitative descriptive designs focused on measuring prevalence of sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence
- Remote data collection methods included telephone interviews, online surveys, mobile applications, SMS surveys, and online discussion forums
- Major methodological limitations: non-probability sampling, lack of defined sampling frames, bias from technology access requirements, and insufficient qualitative probing
- Ethical concerns included exclusion of people with low literacy, inadequate participant safety measures, unclear referral service protocols, and the gender digital divide
- Findings are intended to guide researchers in critical assessment of remote data collection methods for sensitive outcomes in humanitarian settings
Limitations
This is a methodological review of research methods rather than an evaluation of outcomes for a specific child population intervention. It does not measure direct impacts on children's well-being but rather examines how researchers should conduct studies on sensitive topics with women and girls in fragile contexts.
Abstract
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.