Dataset Information

A de-identified database of 11,979 verbal autopsy open-ended responses.

ABSTRACT: As part of the Gates Grand Challenge 13, the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) collected data to enable the development and validation of methods that measure cause-specific mortality in populations with incomplete or inadequate cause of death coding. This work yielded 11,979 verbal autopsy interviews (VAIs). In each, a field interviewer spoke with an individual familiar with the deceased and their final illness, and used a semi-structured questionnaire to collect information about the symptoms of the deceased in their final illness. The VAI collected demographic characteristics, possible risk factors (such as tobacco use), and other potentially contributing characteristics. It also included the open-ended question, "Could you please summarize, or tell us in your own words, any additional information about the illness and/or death of your loved one?" (open narrative). The VAI data were released in a de-identified format in September 2013 through the Global Health Data Exchange, in files that contain verbal autopsies that were collected at six sites in four countries (India, Mexico, Tanzania, and the Philippines). Due to research interest, we have now created redacted versions of the open narratives from the open-ended question of the questionnaire. We hope that this database will be the source of innovations that increase our knowledge about the causes of ill health and, through this knowledge, produce improvements in health for individuals and populations.

SUBMITTER: Flaxman AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6030395 | biostudies-other | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A de-identified database of 11,979 verbal autopsy open-ended responses.

Flaxman Abraham D AD Harman Lisa L Joseph Jonathan J Brown Jonathan J Murray Christopher J L CJL

Gates open research 20180417

As part of the Gates Grand Challenge 13, the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) collected data to enable the development and validation of methods that measure cause-specific mortality in populations with incomplete or inadequate cause of death coding. This work yielded 11,979 verbal autopsy interviews (VAIs). In each, a field interviewer spoke with an individual familiar with the deceased and their final illness, and used a semi-structured questionnaire to collect information ...[more]

PMID: 29984357

Similar Datasets

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: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:BackgroundThe South African national cause of death validation (NCODV 2017/18) project collected a national sample of verbal autopsies (VA) with cause of death (COD) assignment by physician-coded VA (PCVA) and computer-coded VA (CCVA).ObjectiveThe performance of three CCVA algorithms (InterVA-5, InSilicoVA and Tariff 2.0) in assigning a COD was compared with PCVA (reference standard).MethodsSeven performance metrics assessed individual and population level agreement of COD assignment by age, sex and place of death subgroups. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, overall agreement, kappa, and chance corrected concordance (CCC) assessed individual level agreement. Cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) accuracy and Spearman's rank correlation assessed population level agreement.ResultsA total of 5386 VA records were analysed. PCVA and CCVAs all identified HIV/AIDS as the leading COD. CCVA PPV and sensitivity, based on confidence intervals, were comparable except for HIV/AIDS, TB, maternal, diabetes mellitus, other cancers, and some injuries. CCVAs performed well for identifying perinatal deaths, road traffic accidents, suicide and homicide but poorly for pneumonia, other infectious diseases and renal failure. Overall agreement between CCVAs and PCVA for the top single cause (48.2-51.6) indicated comparable weak agreement between methods. Overall agreement, for the top three causes showed moderate agreement for InterVA (70.9) and InSilicoVA (73.8). Agreement based on kappa (-0.05-0.49)and CCC (0.06-0.43) was weak to none for all algorithms and groups. CCVAs had moderate to strong agreement for CSMF accuracy, with InterVA-5 highest for neonates (0.90), Tariff 2.0 highest for adults (0.89) and males (0.84), and InSilicoVA highest for females (0.88), elders (0.83) and out-of-facility deaths (0.85). Rank correlation indicated moderate agreement for adults (0.75-0.79).ConclusionsWhilst CCVAs identified HIV/AIDS as the leading COD, consistent with PCVA, there is scope for improving the algorithms for use in South Africa.

Dataset Information

A de-identified database of 11,979 verbal autopsy open-ended responses.

Publications

A de-identified database of 11,979 verbal autopsy open-ended responses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets