title: Perceptions of frontline staff regarding data collection methodologies used during the 2009 A H1N1 influenza immunization campaign in Canada.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  During the 2009 H1N1 immunization campaign, electronic and hybrid (comprising both electronic and paper components) systems were employed to collect client-level vaccination data in clinics across Canada. Because different systems were used across the country, the 2009 immunization campaign offered an opportunity to study the usability of the various data collection methods.
  
  
  METHODS
  A convenience sample of clinic staff working in public health agencies and hospitals in 9 provinces/territories across Canada completed a questionnaire in which they indicated their level of agreement with seven statements regarding the usability of the data collection system employed at their vaccination clinic. Questions included overall ease of use, effectiveness of the method utilized, efficiency at completing tasks, comfort using the method, ability to recover from mistakes, ease of learning the method and overall satisfaction with the method. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used to measure responses.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Most respondents (96%) were employed in sites run by public health. Respondents included 186 nurses and 114 administrative staff, among whom 90% and 47%, respectively, used a paper-based method for data collection. Approximately half the respondents had a year or less of experience with immunization-related tasks during seasonal influenza campaigns. Over 90% of all frontline staff found their data collection method easy to use, perceived it to be effective in helping them complete their tasks, felt quick and comfortable using the method, and found the method easy to learn, regardless of whether a hybrid or electronic system was used.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study demonstrates that there may be a greater willingness of frontline immunization staff to adapt to new technologies than previously perceived by decision-makers. The public health community should recognize that usability may not be a barrier to implementing electronic methods for collecting individual-level immunization data.
authors.forename: Julie
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Foisy
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Quach
authors.forename: Christine L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Heidebrecht
authors.forename: Jennifer A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Pereira
authors.forename: Sherman D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Quan
authors.forename: Maryse
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Guay
authors.forename: Julie A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Bettinger
authors.forename: Shelley L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Deeks
authors.forename: Stephanie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Brien
authors.forename: Jeffrey C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Kwong
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002170:Canada; D003625:Data Collection / Q000379:methods*; D057286:Electronic Health Records; D006282:Health Personnel / Q000523:psychology*; D006801:Humans; D017589:Immunization Programs / Q000458:organization & administration*; D053118:Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; D007252:Influenza Vaccines / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D007251:Influenza, Human / Q000517:prevention & control*; D010209:Paper; D010465:Perception
chemical_list: D007252:Influenza Vaccines