Evaluating the Impact of Esicapps on Efficient and Effective Monitoring and Collection of Environmental Health Data in Ghana.

Abstract

ESICApps is a digital platform designed to improve environmental health data monitoring and collection. It enhances the efficiency, accuracy, and reliability of Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) in enforcing sanitation regulations. However, challenges like technical issues, user-friendliness, and accessibility may affect its effectiveness. This study assessed the impact of ESICApps on efficient and effective monitoring and collection of environmental health data in Ghana. A descriptive crosssectional study was conducted among Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) in 24 Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) within the Greater Accra Region. A total of 254 EHOs were selected using a multi-stage sampling approach, incorporating census, snowball, and convenience sampling techniques. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were performed using SPSS version 25 to assess user experiences, efficiency, and the factors influencing satisfaction levels. The majority (56.3%) of participants were aged between 31 and 40 years, with 63.0% being male. Majority (53.9%) agreed that they could return to their previous task after an interruption, and 76.0% found ESICApps easy to operate. Additionally, 78.7% indicated that the platform enabled accurate fieldwork and data collection. A significant association was observed between education level and perception of ESICApps' accuracy in field data collection (χ²=7.1, p=0.034), with Cramer‘s V indicating a moderate association (V=0.20, p=0.034). Participants with certificate qualifications were 90% less likely to perceive ESICApps as facilitating accurate fieldwork compared to those with higher education [AOR=0.1 (0.02–0.72), p=0.019]. Nearly half (49.2%) of the participants agreed that ESICApps functioned reliably, while 93.7% expressed comfort using the platform. Assistants officers were five times more likely to report satisfaction compared to officers [AOR=5.2 (1.01–26.34), p=0.049]. Furthermore, 92.9% found ESICApps easier to use than ESICOMES, and 42.1% strongly agreed that it enhanced fieldwork efficiency. However, 51.2% reported that the application sometimes crashed or slowed down their phones. ESICApps demonstrated significant potential for improving data collection accuracy, efficiency, and overall environmental health monitoring. However, occasional system crashes and slow response times affected workflow. Higher education levels were associated with greater confidence in the system‘s capabilities, and assistants reported higher satisfaction levels than senior officers. Despite these challenges, ESICApps was perceived as a more reliable and effective alternative to traditional paper-based methods. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should leverage ESICApps data for environmental risk assessments, while NGOs and civil society groups should support MMDAs with resources such as mobile devices and training workshops to enhance adoption and usability.