Lessons learned from using an audience response system in a community setting for research data collection.
Keneshia Bryant-Moore, Tiffany Haynes, Dennis Z Kuo and 9 others
PMID 29566271WHAT IT FOUND
Team members said clicker surveys engaged church participants, were less boring than paper surveys, and were easier for people with low literacy or vision difficulties, but limited devices, technical faults, and matching paper answers made data collection difficult.
Key findings
01Team members said clicker surveys engaged church participants, were less boring than paper surveys, and were easier for people with low literacy or vision difficulties.
02The clicker system could not capture open-ended or continuous answers, so a paper survey was needed and had to be matched with clicker data.
03Team members reported that university-owned clickers were sometimes unavailable, technical faults delayed sessions, and they wanted more training and support.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The lessons came from research team members' reflections, not from formal interviews with the church participants. The survey findings themselves were not analysed or reported in this paper. The clicker equipment was shared with university classes and was not purchased specifically for the study. A separate paper survey was required for open-ended questions, which created matching and device-exchange problems. The paper describes a research data-collection method in churches, not a patient-care intervention.
Declared interests
The supplied text does not include a conflicts-of-interest declaration; the publication types list NIH extramural research support, and the paper describes a funded research grant.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that clicker surveys improve patient care or health outcomes. The paper reports team members' reflections on a research data-collection process, not measured clinical effects.