Rohina Joshi1, Andre Pascal Kengne, Bruce Neal. 1. George Institute for International Health, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW, Australia. rjoshi@thegeorgeinstitute.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report on the uptake of guidelines published in the early 1990s with specific recommendations about the design of future studies based on verbal autopsy conducted for mortality surveillance. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of all verbal autopsy studies published before January 2006 and extracted from the studies a standard set of data. We then compared studies designed before and after the recommendations were issued in terms of seven key methodological indicators. FINDINGS: We found 102 studies conducted in 39 countries; 60 were designed before and 42 after the guidelines were issued. The methods used in these 102 studies varied considerably. While some encouraging trends were noted, there is no evidence that the design recommendations have been systematically implemented. Specifically, there was no clear increase in the proportion of studies with a combined questionnaire (63% before recommendations versus 74% after; P = 0.3), a trained interviewer (70% versus 70%; P = 1.0), a suitable respondent (98% versus 100%; P = 1.0), an optimal recall period (84% versus 97%; P = 0.2), predefined algorithms (28% versus 38%; P = 0.4), an option for assigning multiple causes of death (30% versus 38%; P = 0.3), or a follow-up validation study (83% versus 72%; P = 0.7). CONCLUSION: Expert recommendations for optimal design of verbal autopsy studies have been incompletely implemented to date. Better uptake of design recommendations through enhanced collaboration between research teams is likely to produce better mortality statistics from an increasing number of verbal autopsy studies.
OBJECTIVE: To report on the uptake of guidelines published in the early 1990s with specific recommendations about the design of future studies based on verbal autopsy conducted for mortality surveillance. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of all verbal autopsy studies published before January 2006 and extracted from the studies a standard set of data. We then compared studies designed before and after the recommendations were issued in terms of seven key methodological indicators. FINDINGS: We found 102 studies conducted in 39 countries; 60 were designed before and 42 after the guidelines were issued. The methods used in these 102 studies varied considerably. While some encouraging trends were noted, there is no evidence that the design recommendations have been systematically implemented. Specifically, there was no clear increase in the proportion of studies with a combined questionnaire (63% before recommendations versus 74% after; P = 0.3), a trained interviewer (70% versus 70%; P = 1.0), a suitable respondent (98% versus 100%; P = 1.0), an optimal recall period (84% versus 97%; P = 0.2), predefined algorithms (28% versus 38%; P = 0.4), an option for assigning multiple causes of death (30% versus 38%; P = 0.3), or a follow-up validation study (83% versus 72%; P = 0.7). CONCLUSION: Expert recommendations for optimal design of verbal autopsy studies have been incompletely implemented to date. Better uptake of design recommendations through enhanced collaboration between research teams is likely to produce better mortality statistics from an increasing number of verbal autopsy studies.
Authors: R W Snow; J R Armstrong; D Forster; M T Winstanley; V M Marsh; C R Newton; C Waruiru; I Mwangi; P A Winstanley; K Marsh Journal: Lancet Date: 1992-08-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Philip W Setel; Osman Sankoh; Chalapati Rao; Victoria A Velkoff; Colin Mathers; Yang Gonghuan; Yusuf Hemed; Prabhat Jha; Alan D Lopez Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2005-09-22 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: C Engmann; A Garces; I Jehan; J Ditekemena; M Phiri; V Thorsten; M Mazariegos; E Chomba; O Pasha; A Tshefu; D Wallace; E M McClure; R L Goldenberg; W A Carlo; L L Wright; C Bose Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Cyril Engmann; John Ditekemena; Imtiaz Jehan; Ana Garces; Mutinta Phiri; Vanessa Thorsten; Manolo Mazariegos; Elwyn Chomba; Omrana Pasha; Antoinette Tshefu; Elizabeth M McClure; Dennis Wallace; Robert L Goldenberg; Waldemar A Carlo; Linda L Wright; Carl Bose Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2011-08-05
Authors: C Engmann; I Jehan; J Ditekemena; A Garces; M Phiri; M Mazariegos; E Chomba; O Pasha; A Tshefu; E M McClure; V Thorsten; H Chakraborty; R L Goldenberg; C Bose; W A Carlo; L L Wright Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Thomas Truelsen; Lars-Henrik Krarup; Helle K Iversen; George A Mensah; Valery L Feigin; Luciano A Sposato; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Mathew A Mwanyangala; Honorathy M Urassa; Jensen C Rutashobya; Chrisostom C Mahutanga; Angelina M Lutambi; Deodatus V Maliti; Honorati M Masanja; Salim K Abdulla; Rose N Lema Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2011-08-05
Authors: Ann L Montgomery; Shaun K Morris; Diego G Bassani; Rajesh Kumar; Raju Jotkar; Prabhat Jha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anh D Ngo; Chalapati Rao; Nguyen Phuong Hoa; Damian G Hoy; Khieu Thi Quynh Trang; Peter S Hill Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 3.295