Dataset Information

Monitoring progress in reducing maternal mortality using verbal autopsy methods in vital registration systems: what can we conclude about specific causes of maternal death?

ABSTRACT: Reducing maternal mortality is a key focus of development strategies and one of the indicators used to measure progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. In the absence of medical certification of the cause of deaths that occur in the community, verbal autopsy (VA) methods are the only available means to assess levels and trends of maternal deaths that occur outside health facilities. The 2016 World Health Organization VA Instrument facilitates the identification of eight specific causes of maternal death, yet maternal deaths are often unsupervised, leading to sparse and generally poor symptom reporting to inform a reliable diagnosis using VAs. There is little research evidence to support the reliable identification of specific causes of maternal death in the context of routine VAs. We recommend that routine VAs are only used to capture the event of a maternal death and that more detailed follow-up interviews are used to identify the specific causes.

SUBMITTER: Riley ID

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6545734 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Monitoring progress in reducing maternal mortality using verbal autopsy methods in vital registration systems: what can we conclude about specific causes of maternal death?

Riley Ian D ID Hazard Riley H RH Joshi Rohina R Chowdhury Hafizur Rahman HR Lopez Alan D AD

BMC medicine 20190603 1

Reducing maternal mortality is a key focus of development strategies and one of the indicators used to measure progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. In the absence of medical certification of the cause of deaths that occur in the community, verbal autopsy (VA) methods are the only available means to assess levels and trends of maternal deaths that occur outside health facilities. The 2016 World Health Organization VA Instrument facilitates the identification of eight spec ...[more]

PMID: 31155009

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:BackgroundNigeria has one of the highest under-five mortality rates in the world. Identifying the causes of these deaths is crucial to inform changes in policy documents, design and implementation of appropriate interventions to reduce these deaths. This study aimed to provide national and zonal-level estimates of the causes of under-five death in Nigeria in the 2013-2018 periods.MethodsWe conducted retrospective inquiries into the cause of deaths of 948 neonates and 2,127 children aged 1-59 months as identified in the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS). The verbal autopsy asked about signs and symptoms during the final illness. The Physician Coded Verbal Autopsy (PCVA) and Expert Algorithm Verbal Autopsy (EAVA) methods were employed to assign the immediate and underlying cause of deaths to all cases.ResultFor the analysis, sampling weights were applied to accommodate non-proportional allocation. Boys accounted for 56 percent of neonatal deaths and 51.5 percent of the 1-59-months old deaths. About one-quarter of under-5 mortality was attributed to neonatal deaths, and 50 percent of these neonatal deaths were recorded within 48 h of delivery. Overall, 84 percent of the under-5 deaths were in the northern geopolitical zones. Based on the two methods for case analysis, neonatal infections (sepsis, pneumonia, and meningitis) were responsible for 44 percent of the neonatal deaths, followed by intrapartum injury (PCVA: 21 percent vs. EAVA: 29 percent). The three main causes of death in children aged 1-59 months were malaria (PCVA: 23 percent vs. EAVA: 35 percent), diarrhoea (PCVA: 17 percent vs. EAVA: 23 percent), and pneumonia (PCVA: 10 percent vs. EAVA: 12 percent). In the North West, where the majority of under-5 (1-59 months) deaths were recorded, diarrhoea was the main cause of death (PCVA: 24.3 percent vs. EAVA: 30 percent).ConclusionThe causes of neonatal and children aged 1-59 months deaths vary across the northern and southern regions. By homing on the specific causes of mortality by region, the study provides crucial information that may be useful in planning appropriately tailored interventions to significantly reduce under-five deaths in Nigeria.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Monitoring progress with disease and injury reduction in many populations will require widespread use of verbal autopsy (VA). Multiple methods have been developed for assigning cause of death from a VA but their application is restricted by uncertainty about their reliability. METHODS:We investigated the validity of five automated VA methods for assigning cause of death: InterVA-4, Random Forest (RF), Simplified Symptom Pattern (SSP), Tariff method (Tariff), and King-Lu (KL), in addition to physician review of VA forms (PCVA), based on 12,535 cases from diverse populations for which the true cause of death had been reliably established. For adults, children, neonates and stillbirths, performance was assessed separately for individuals using sensitivity, specificity, Kappa, and chance-corrected concordance (CCC) and for populations using cause specific mortality fraction (CSMF) accuracy, with and without additional diagnostic information from prior contact with health services. A total of 500 train-test splits were used to ensure that results are robust to variation in the underlying cause of death distribution. RESULTS:Three automated diagnostic methods, Tariff, SSP, and RF, but not InterVA-4, performed better than physician review in all age groups, study sites, and for the majority of causes of death studied. For adults, CSMF accuracy ranged from 0.764 to 0.770, compared with 0.680 for PCVA and 0.625 for InterVA; CCC varied from 49.2% to 54.1%, compared with 42.2% for PCVA, and 23.8% for InterVA. For children, CSMF accuracy was 0.783 for Tariff, 0.678 for PCVA, and 0.520 for InterVA; CCC was 52.5% for Tariff, 44.5% for PCVA, and 30.3% for InterVA. For neonates, CSMF accuracy was 0.817 for Tariff, 0.719 for PCVA, and 0.629 for InterVA; CCC varied from 47.3% to 50.3% for the three automated methods, 29.3% for PCVA, and 19.4% for InterVA. The method with the highest sensitivity for a specific cause varied by cause. CONCLUSIONS:Physician review of verbal autopsy questionnaires is less accurate than automated methods in determining both individual and population causes of death. Overall, Tariff performs as well or better than other methods and should be widely applied in routine mortality surveillance systems with poor cause of death certification practices.

Project description:BackgroundOne of the fundamental building blocks for determining the burden of disease in populations is to reliably measure the level and pattern of mortality by age and sex. Where well-functioning registration systems exist, this task is relatively straightforward. Results from many civil registration systems, however, remain uncertain because of a lack of confidence in the completeness of death registration. Incomplete registration systems mean not all deaths are counted, and resulting estimates of death rates for the population are then underestimated. Death distribution methods (DDMs) are a suite of demographic methods that attempt to estimate the fraction of deaths that are registered and counted by the civil registration system. Although widely applied and used, the methods have at least three types of limitations. First, a wide range of variants of these methods has been applied in practice with little scientific literature to guide their selection. Second, the methods have not been extensively validated in real population conditions where violations of the assumptions of the methods most certainly occur. Third, DDMs do not generate uncertainty intervals.Methods and findingsIn this paper, we systematically evaluate the performance of 234 variants of DDM methods in three different validation environments where we know or have strong beliefs about the true level of completeness of death registration. Using these datasets, we identify three variants of the DDMs that generally perform the best. We also find that even these improved methods yield uncertainty intervals of roughly +/- one-quarter of the estimate. Finally, we demonstrate the application of the optimal variants in eight countries.ConclusionsThere continues to be a role for partial vital registration data in measuring adult mortality levels and trends, but such results should only be interpreted alongside all other data sources on adult mortality and the uncertainty of the resulting levels, trends, and age-patterns of adult death considered. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:Diabetes mellitus is a serious global health issue which significantly impacts public health and socioeconomic development. Exploring how the community perceives the causes of death and their associated risk factors is crucial for public health. This study combines verbal autopsy (VA) with the Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) register to explore community perceptions of causes of death and associated influential factors in Makkah province, Saudi Arabia. 302 VA interviews were conducted with relatives or caregivers of deceased who died between 2018 and 2021 based on T2DM medical register from Alnoor Specialist Hospital in Makkah City, Saudi Arabia. Cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) obtained from the VA using the InterVA-5 model were utilized to assess community perception. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to determine factors influencing community perceptions of causes of death. Lin's CCC with 95% CI was used to analyze the concordance for the CSMFs from verbal autopsy causes of death (VACoD) as a presumed reference standard and family-reported causes of death (FRCoD). The outcomes of this study demonstrate a generally broad spectrum of community perceived mortalities, with some critical misconceptions based on the type of death and other vital events like marital status, with an overall CCC of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.20-1.00; p = 003). The study findings demonstrate that community perception is weak if the deceased was male compared to female (aOR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.26-1.03) and if the deceased was > = 80 years compared to 34-59 years (aOR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.16-1.38), but it significantly improves among married compared to single (aOR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.02-4.42). Exploring community perception of causes of death is crucial as it provides valuable insights into the community's understanding, beliefs, and concerns regarding mortality. Higher or lower community perception is attributed to how people may perceive risk factors associated with the causes of death, which can guide public health planning and interventional programs. The study findings further emphasize the need to employ robust and standardized VA methods within the routine medical services for a systemized assessment of families' reported causes of death.

Dataset Information

Monitoring progress in reducing maternal mortality using verbal autopsy methods in vital registration systems: what can we conclude about specific causes of maternal death?

Publications

Monitoring progress in reducing maternal mortality using verbal autopsy methods in vital registration systems: what can we conclude about specific causes of maternal death?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets