Search

Introduction: Verbal autopsy (VA) is a useful tool for evaluating causes of death, especially in places with limited or no vital registration systems. The Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) developed a validated questionnaire and a set of automated methods to determine the cause of death from a VA. However, the application of these methods needs to be tested in a community environment., Objective: To estimate cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) using VAs and compare them against those obtained in the vital statistics of the state of Hidalgo, Mexico., Methods: A random sample of deaths occurred in 2009 was selected from vital statistics in the state of Hidalgo. The full PHMRC validated VA instrument was applied to the relatives of the deceased, and the cause of death was determined using Tariff's automated method. The causes of death were grouped into 34 causes for adults, 21 for children and 6 for newborns. Results were compared with cause of death on death certificates for all deaths., Results: A total of 1,198 VAs were analyzed. The Tariff method was not able to assign a cause of death in only 9% of adults, 2% of children and 7% of neonatal deaths. The CSMFs obtained from the Tariff method were similar in some cases to those of vital statistics (e.g. cirrhosis), but different in others (e.g. sepsis)., Conclusion: The application of VAs in a community sample, analyzed with the Tariff method, allowed assigning a cause of death to most of the cases, with results similar to those of vital statistics for most conditions. This tool can be useful to strengthen the quality of vital statistics., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: There is increasing interest in using verbal autopsy to produce nationally representative population-level estimates of causes of death. However, the burden of processing a large quantity of surveys collected with paper and pencil has been a barrier to scaling up verbal autopsy surveillance. Direct electronic data capture has been used in other large-scale surveys and can be used in verbal autopsy as well, to reduce time and cost of going from collected data to actionable information., Methods: We collected verbal autopsy interviews using paper and pencil and using electronic tablets at two sites, and measured the cost and time required to process the surveys for analysis. From these cost and time data, we extrapolated costs associated with conducting large-scale surveillance with verbal autopsy., Results: We found that the median time between data collection and data entry for surveys collected on paper and pencil was approximately 3 months. For surveys collected on electronic tablets, this was less than 2 days. For small-scale surveys, we found that the upfront costs of purchasing electronic tablets was the primary cost and resulted in a higher total cost. For large-scale surveys, the costs associated with data entry exceeded the cost of the tablets, so electronic data capture provides both a quicker and cheaper method of data collection., Conclusions: As countries increase verbal autopsy surveillance, it is important to consider the best way to design sustainable systems for data collection. Electronic data capture has the potential to greatly reduce the time and costs associated with data collection. For long-term, large-scale surveillance required by national vital statistical systems, electronic data capture reduces costs and allows data to be available sooner.

Background: One key contextual feature in Verbal Autopsy (VA) is the time between death and survey administration, or recall period. This study quantified the effect of recall period on VA performance by using a paired dataset in which two VAs were administered for a single decedent., Methods: This study used information from the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) Study, which collected VAs for "gold standard" cases where cause of death (COD) was supported by clinical criteria. This study repeated VA interviews within 3-52 months of death in PHMRC study sites in Andhra Pradesh, India, and Bohol and Manila, Philippines. The final dataset included 2113 deaths interviewed twice and with recall periods ranging from 0 to 52 months. COD was assigned by the Tariff method and its accuracy determined by comparison with the gold standard COD., Results: The probability of a correct diagnosis of COD decreased by 0.55 % per month in the period after death. Site of data collection and survey module also affected the probability of Tariff Method correctly assigning a COD. The probability of a correct diagnosis in VAs collected 3-11 months after death will, on average, be 95.9 % of that in VAs collected within 3 months of death., Conclusions: These findings suggest that collecting VAs within 3 months of death may improve the quality of the information collected, taking the need for a period of mourning into account. This study substantiates the WHO recommendation that it is reasonable to collect VAs up to 1 year after death providing it is accepted that probability of a correct diagnosis is likely to decline month by month during this period.

Background: We believe that it is important that governments understand the reliability of the mortality data which they have at their disposable to guide policy debates. In many instances, verbal autopsy (VA) will be the only source of mortality data for populations, yet little is known about how the accuracy of VA diagnoses is affected by the reliability of the symptom responses. We previously described the effect of the duration of time between death and VA administration on VA validity. In this paper, using the same dataset, we assess the relationship between the reliability and completeness of symptom responses and the reliability and accuracy of cause of death (COD) prediction., Methods: The study was based on VAs in the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) VA Validation Dataset from study sites in Bohol and Manila, Philippines and Andhra Pradesh, India. The initial interview was repeated within 3-52 months of death. Question responses were assessed for reliability and completeness between the two survey rounds. COD was predicted by Tariff Method., Results: A sample of 4226 VAs was collected for 2113 decedents, including 1394 adults, 349 children, and 370 neonates. Mean question reliability was unexpectedly low ( kappa  = 0.447): 42.5 % of responses positive at the first interview were negative at the second, and 47.9 % of responses positive at the second had been negative at the first. Question reliability was greater for the short form of the PHMRC instrument ( kappa  = 0.497) and when analyzed at the level of the individual decedent ( kappa  = 0.610). Reliability at the level of the individual decedent was associated with COD predictive reliability and predictive accuracy., Conclusions: Families give coherent accounts of events leading to death but the details vary from interview to interview for the same case. Accounts are accurate but inconsistent; different subsets of symptoms are identified on each occasion. However, there are sufficient accurate and consistent subsets of symptoms to enable the Tariff Method to assign a COD. Questions which contributed most to COD prediction were also the most reliable and consistent across repeat interviews; these have been included in the short form VA questionnaire. Accuracy and reliability of diagnosis for an individual death depend on the quality of interview. This has considerable implications for the progressive roll out of VAs into civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems.

Background: Reliable data on the distribution of causes of death (COD) in a population are fundamental to good public health practice. In the absence of comprehensive medical certification of deaths, the only feasible way to collect essential mortality data is verbal autopsy (VA). The Tariff Method was developed by the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) to ascertain COD from VA information. Given its potential for improving information about COD, there is interest in refining the method. We describe the further development of the Tariff Method., Methods: This study uses data from the PHMRC and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia studies. Gold standard clinical diagnostic criteria for hospital deaths were specified for a target cause list. VAs were collected from families using the PHMRC verbal autopsy instrument including health care experience (HCE). The original Tariff Method (Tariff 1.0) was trained using the validated PHMRC database for which VAs had been collected for deaths with hospital records fulfilling the gold standard criteria (validated VAs). In this study, the performance of Tariff 1.0 was tested using VAs from household surveys (community VAs) collected for the PHMRC and NHMRC studies. We then corrected the model to account for the previous observed biases of the model, and Tariff 2.0 was developed. The performance of Tariff 2.0 was measured at individual and population levels using the validated PHMRC database., Results: For median chance-corrected concordance (CCC) and mean cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) accuracy, and for each of three modules with and without HCE, Tariff 2.0 performs significantly better than the Tariff 1.0, especially in children and neonates. Improvement in CSMF accuracy with HCE was 2.5%, 7.4%, and 14.9% for adults, children, and neonates, respectively, and for median CCC with HCE it was 6.0%, 13.5%, and 21.2%, respectively. Similar levels of improvement are seen in analyses without HCE., Conclusions: Tariff 2.0 addresses the main shortcomings of the application of the Tariff Method to analyze data from VAs in community settings. It provides an estimation of COD from VAs with better performance at the individual and population level than the previous version of this method, and it is publicly available for use.

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.

Background: Recent economic growth in Papua New Guinea (PNG) would suggest that the country may be experiencing an epidemiological transition, characterized by a reduction in infectious diseases and a growing burden from non-communicable diseases (NCDs). However, data on cause-specific mortality in PNG are very sparse, and the extent of the transition within the country is poorly understood.Methods: Mortality surveillance was established in four small populations across PNG: West Hiri in Central Province, Asaro Valley in Eastern Highlands Province, Hides in Hela Province and Karkar Island in Madang Province. Verbal autopsies (VAs) were conducted on all deaths identified, and causes of death were assigned by SmartVA and classified into five broad disease categories: endemic NCDs; emerging NCDs; endemic infections; emerging infections; and injuries. Results from previous PNG VA studies, using different VA methods and spanning the years 1970 to 2001, are also presented here.Results: A total of 868 deaths among adolescents and adults were identified and assigned a cause of death. NCDs made up the majority of all deaths (40.4%), with the endemic NCD of chronic respiratory disease responsible for the largest proportion of deaths (10.5%), followed by the emerging NCD of diabetes (6.2%). Emerging infectious diseases outnumbered endemic infectious diseases (11.9% versus 9.5%). The distribution of causes of death differed across the four sites, with emerging NCDs and emerging infections highest at the site that is most socioeconomically developed, West Hiri. Comparing the 1970-2001 VA series with the present study suggests a large decrease in endemic infections.Conclusions: Our results indicate immediate priorities for health service planning and for strengthening of vital registration systems, to more usefully serve the needs of health priority setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]