Dataset Information

The WHO 2016 verbal autopsy instrument: An international standard suitable for automated analysis by InterVA, InSilicoVA, and Tariff 2.0.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Verbal autopsy (VA) is a practical method for determining probable causes of death at the population level in places where systems for medical certification of cause of death are weak. VA methods suitable for use in routine settings, such as civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems, have developed rapidly in the last decade. These developments have been part of a growing global momentum to strengthen CRVS systems in low-income countries. With this momentum have come pressure for continued research and development of VA methods and the need for a single standard VA instrument on which multiple automated diagnostic methods can be developed. METHODS AND FINDINGS:In 2016, partners harmonized a WHO VA standard instrument that fully incorporates the indicators necessary to run currently available automated diagnostic algorithms. The WHO 2016 VA instrument, together with validated approaches to analyzing VA data, offers countries solutions to improving information about patterns of cause-specific mortality. This VA instrument offers the opportunity to harmonize the automated diagnostic algorithms in the future. CONCLUSIONS:Despite all improvements in design and technology, VA is only recommended where medical certification of cause of death is not possible. The method can nevertheless provide sufficient information to guide public health priorities in communities in which physician certification of deaths is largely unavailable. The WHO 2016 VA instrument, together with validated approaches to analyzing VA data, offers countries solutions to improving information about patterns of cause-specific mortality.

SUBMITTER: Nichols EK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5761828 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The WHO 2016 verbal autopsy instrument: An international standard suitable for automated analysis by InterVA, InSilicoVA, and Tariff 2.0.

Nichols Erin K EK Byass Peter P Chandramohan Daniel D Clark Samuel J SJ Flaxman Abraham D AD Jakob Robert R Leitao Jordana J Maire Nicolas N Rao Chalapati C Riley Ian I Setel Philip W PW

PLoS medicine 20180110 1

<h4>Background</h4>Verbal autopsy (VA) is a practical method for determining probable causes of death at the population level in places where systems for medical certification of cause of death are weak. VA methods suitable for use in routine settings, such as civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems, have developed rapidly in the last decade. These developments have been part of a growing global momentum to strengthen CRVS systems in low-income countries. With this momentum have c ...[more]

PMID: 29320495

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe most common method for determining cause of death is certification by physicians based either on available medical records, or where such data are not available, through verbal autopsy (VA). The physician-certification approach is costly and inconvenient; however, recent work shows the potential of a computer-based probabilistic model (InterVA) to interpret verbal autopsy data in a more convenient, consistent, and rapid way. In this study we validate separately both physician-certified verbal autopsy (PCVA) and the InterVA probabilistic model against hospital cause of death (HCOD) in adults dying in a district hospital on the coast of Kenya.MethodsBetween March 2007 and June 2010, VA interviews were conducted for 145 adult deaths that occurred at Kilifi District Hospital. The VA data were reviewed by a physician and the cause of death established. A range of indicators (including age, gender, physical signs and symptoms, pregnancy status, medical history, and the circumstances of death) from the VA forms were included in the InterVA for interpretation. Cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMF), Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were applied to compare agreement between PCVA, InterVA, and HCOD.ResultsHCOD, InterVA, and PCVA yielded the same top five underlying causes of adult deaths. The InterVA overestimated tuberculosis as a cause of death compared to the HCOD. On the other hand, PCVA overestimated diabetes. Overall, CSMF for the five major cause groups by the InterVA, PCVA, and HCOD were 70%, 65%, and 60%, respectively. PCVA versus HCOD yielded a higher kappa value (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48, 0.54) than the InterVA versus HCOD which yielded a kappa (κ) value of 0.32 (95% CI: 0.30, 0.38). Overall, (κ) agreement across the three methods was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.48). The areas under the ROC curves were 0.82 for InterVA and 0.88 for PCVA. The observed sensitivities and specificities across the five major causes of death varied from 43% to 100% and 87% to 99%, respectively, for the InterVA/PCVA against the HCOD.ConclusionBoth the InterVA and PCVA compared well with the HCOD at a population level and determined the top five underlying causes of death in the rural community of Kilifi. We hope that our study, albeit small, provides new and useful data that will stimulate further definitive work on methods of interpreting VA data.

Project description:BackgroundVerbal Autopsy (VA) is widely viewed as the only immediate strategy for registering cause of death in much of Africa and Asia, where routine physician certification of deaths is not widely practiced. VA involves a lay interview with family or friends after a death, to record essential details of the circumstances. These data can then be processed automatically to arrive at standardized cause of death information.MethodsThe Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) undertook a study at six tertiary hospitals in low- and middle-income countries which documented over 12,000 deaths clinically and subsequently undertook VA interviews. This dataset, now in the public domain, was compared with the WHO 2012 VA standard and the InterVA-4 interpretative model.ResultsThe PHMRC data covered 70% of the WHO 2012 VA input indicators, and categorized cause of death according to PHMRC definitions. After eliminating some problematic or incomplete records, 11,984 VAs were compared. Some of the PHMRC cause definitions, such as 'preterm delivery', differed substantially from the International Classification of Diseases, version 10 equivalent. There were some appreciable inconsistencies between the hospital and VA data, including 20% of the hospital maternal deaths being described as non-pregnant in the VA data. A high proportion of VA cases (66%) reported respiratory symptoms, but only 18% of assigned hospital causes were respiratory-related. Despite these issues, the concordance correlation coefficient between hospital and InterVA-4 cause of death categories was 0.61.ConclusionsThe PHMRC dataset is a valuable reference source for VA methods, but has to be interpreted with care. Inherently inconsistent cases should not be included when using these data to build other VA models. Conversely, models built from these data should be independently evaluated. It is important to distinguish between the internal and external validity of VA models. The effects of using tertiary hospital data, rather than the more usual application of VA to all-community deaths, are hard to evaluate. However, it would still be of value for VA method development to have further studies of population-based post-mortem examinations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Over one third of deaths in Zambian health facilities involve someone who has already died before arrival (i.e., Brough in Dead), and in most BiD cases, the CoD have not been fully analyzed. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the function of automated VA based on the Tariff Method 2.0 to identify the CoD among the BiD cases and the usefulness by comparing the data on the death notification form. METHODS:The target site was one third-level hospital in the Republic of Zambia's capital city. All BiD cases who reached the target health facility from January to August 2017 were included. The deceased's closest relatives were interviewed using a structured VA questionnaire and the data were analyzed using the SmartVA to determine the CoD at the individual and population level. The CoD were compared with description on the death notification forms by using t-test and Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS:One thousand three hundred seventy-eight and 209 cases were included for persons aged 13 years and older (Adult) and those aged 1 month to 13 years old (Child), respectively. The top CoD for Adults were infectious diseases followed by non-communicable diseases and that for Child were infectious diseases, followed by accidents. The proportion of cases with a determined CoD was significantly higher when using the SmartVA (75% for Adult and 67% for Child) than the death notification form (61%). A proportion (42.7% for Adult and 46% for Child) of the CoD-determined cases matched in both sources, with a low concordance rate for Adult (kappa coefficient = 0.1385) and a good for Child(kappa coefficient = 0.635). CONCLUSIONS:The CoD of the BiD cases were successfully analyzed using the SmartVA for the first time in Zambia. While there many erroneous descriptions on the death notification form, the SmartVA could determine the CoD among more BiD cases. Since the information on the death notification form is reflected in the national vital statistics, more accurate and complete CoD data are required. In order to strengthen the death registration system with accurate CoD, it will be useful to embed the SmartVA in Zambia's health information system.

Project description:BackgroundDeaths in developing countries often occur outside health facilities, making it extremely difficult to gather reliable cause of death (COD) information. Automated COD assignment using a verbal autopsy instrument (VAI) has been proposed as a reliable and cost-effective alternative to traditional physician-certified verbal autopsy, but its performance is still being evaluated. The purpose of this study was to compare the similarity of diagnosis by Medical Assistants (MA) in the Matlab Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) with the SmartVA Analyze 1.2 (Tariff 2.0) diagnosis.MethodsThis study took place between January 2011 and April 2014 in Matlab, Bangladesh. MA with 3 years of medical training assigned COD to Matlab residents by reviewing the information collected using the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) long-form VAI. Smart VA Analyze 1.2 automatically assigned COD using the same questionnaire. COD agreement and cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) were compared for MA and Tariff.ResultsOf the 4969 verbal autopsy cases reviewed, 4328 were adults, 296 were children, and 345 were neonates. Cohen's kappa was 0.38 (0.36, 0.40) for adults, 0.43 (0.38, 0.49) for children, and 0.27 (0.22, 0.33) for neonates. For adults, the top two COD for MA were stroke (29.6%) and ischemic heart diseases (IHD) (14.2%) and for Tariff these were stroke (32.0%) and IHD (14.0%). For children, the top two COD for MA were drowning (33.5%) and pneumonia (13.2%) and for Tariff these were also drowning (36.8%) and pneumonia (12.4%). For neonates, the top two COD for MA were birth asphyxia (41.2%) and meningitis/sepsis (22.3%) and for Tariff these were birth asphyxia (37.0%) and preterm delivery (30.9%).ConclusionThe CSMFs for Tariff and MA showed very close agreement across all age categories but some differences were observed for neonate preterm delivery and meningitis/sepsis. Given the known advantages of automated methods over physician certified verbal autopsy, the SmartVA software, incorporating the shortened VAI questionnaire and Tariff 2.0, could serve as a cost-effective alternative to Matlab MA to routinely collect and analyze verbal autopsy data in a HDSS to generate essential population level COD data for planning.

Dataset Information

The WHO 2016 verbal autopsy instrument: An international standard suitable for automated analysis by InterVA, InSilicoVA, and Tariff 2.0.

Publications

The WHO 2016 verbal autopsy instrument: An international standard suitable for automated analysis by InterVA, InSilicoVA, and Tariff 2.0.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets