SETTING: Training courses on data entry are few and far between compared to analysis. To address this gap, we conducted a short 2-day course on quality-assured data capture using EpiData for public health professionals in Bangalore and Puducherry, India, in 2013. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of participants who used EpiData and taught the software to others during the 2-years after training and explore the reasons for doing/not doing so. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with self-administered, semi-structured questionnaire developed using web-based Google Forms. We performed a manual thematic analysis to identify the major reasons for using/not using EpiData. RESULTS: Of 46 participants, 38 (83%) responded. Of 31 participants involved in research, 17 (55%) had used EpiData, of whom 6 (35%) had performed double entry and validation. Of the 14 who did not use EpiData, 11 had used MS Excel or SPSS/Epi Info for data entry. Of the 38 respondents, 29 (76%) had taught EpiData to other colleagues and students. Reasons for using EpiData included its user-friendliness, its being open access and the ease in preventing data entry errors. Reasons for not performing double entry included lack of time and manpower. CONCLUSION: The short course on EpiData was effective in knowledge transfer and provides a scalable model for incorporation into the teaching curricula of medical schools and research institutions.