Comparison of a palm-based biometric solution with a name-based identification system in rural Bangladesh

Figures & data

Figure 1. Name-based DHIS2 application and palm-based biometric solution enrolment procedure.

Figure 2. Registration and enrolment of participants with palm-based biometry.

Table 1. Number of attempts by data collectors to re-identify women using name-based DHIS2 application and palm-based biometric solution

Search attempts required	Name-based DHIS2		Palm-based biometric
	n (%)	95% CI	n (%)	95% CI
1 attempt	91 (61.1)	52.7–68.9	126 (84.0)	77.7–89.9
2 attempts	46 (30.9)	23.6–38.9	16 (10.7)	6.2–16.8
≥ 3 attempts	11 (7.4)	3.7–12.8	6 (4.7)	1.9–9.4
Not identified	1 (0.6)	0.2–3.6	0	-

Table 2. Data collector perception of the time needed to re-identify women registered in name-based DHIS2 database or palm-based biometric system

Variables	Name-based database		Palm-based biometric system
	n (%)	95% CI	n (%)	95% CI
<15 sec	92 (61.7%)	53.4–69.6	126 (84.0%)	77.7–89.9
15–60 sec	45 (30.2%)	22.9–38.2	16 (10.7%)	62.6–16.8
>1 min	11 (7.3%)	3.7–12.8	7 (4.7%)	1.9–9.4
Not identified	1 (0.6%)	0.2–3.6	0	-

Table 3. Wilcoxon rank test between two independent systems for re-identification of women

Number of attempts	N = 149	Sum ranks	Z	P value (2 tailed)
Palm-based biometry>DHIS2 name-based search	16	1931.5	−3.822	<.001
Palm-based biometry < DHIS2 name-based search	47	5565.5
Palm-based biometry = DHIS2 name-based search	86

Data availability statement

The dataset analysed during the current study is available in the Research Administration of icddr,b (http:// www.icddrb.org/component/content/article/10003-datapolicies/1893-datapolicies).