BACKGROUND: Through application of the verbal autopsy (VA) approach, trained fieldworkers collect information about the probable cause of death (COD) by using a standardized questionnaire to interview family members who were present at the time of death. The physician-certified VA (PCVA), an independent review of this questionnaire data by up to three physicians trained in VA coding, is currently recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is widely used in the INDEPTH Network. Even given its appropriateness in these contexts, a large percentage of causes of death assigned by VAs remains undetermined. As physicians often do not agree upon a final COD classification, there remains substantial room to improve the standard VA method, potentially leading to a reduction in physician discordance in COD coding. METHODS: We present an extension of the current method of PCVA and compare it to the standard WHO-recommended procedure. We used VA data collected in the Nouna Health and Demographic Surveillance Site (NHDSS) between 2009 and 2010 using a locally-adapted version of an INDEPTH standard verbal autopsy questionnaire. Until 2009, physicians in the NHDSS followed the WHO method (Method 1). As an extension of Method 1, starting in 2010, the use of a panel of physicians was added to the coding process in the case where a third physician's final conclusions resulted in an undetermined COD (Method 2). Two independent samples of VA questionnaires were compared for the year 2009 (using Method 1) and the year 2010 (using Method 2). RESULTS: The WHO-recommended method used for 2009 yielded a high level of undetermined CODs, where the final coding was "undetermined" in 50.8% of all questionnaires due to disagreement among participating physicians (Method 1). By introducing a panel of physicians in 2010 for cases where the principal physicians disagreed on the cause of death, the revised method significantly reduced the proportion of undetermined CODs to 1.5% (Method 2). CONCLUSIONS: As the extended method of PCVA significantly improved the accuracy of the VA procedure, we suggest the adoption of this method for those countries where alternatives like computer-based VA coding are not available. Based on the results of our study, further research should be pursued.
BACKGROUND: Through application of the verbal autopsy (VA) approach, trained fieldworkers collect information about the probable cause of death (COD) by using a standardized questionnaire to interview family members who were present at the time of death. The physician-certified VA (PCVA), an independent review of this questionnaire data by up to three physicians trained in VA coding, is currently recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is widely used in the INDEPTH Network. Even given its appropriateness in these contexts, a large percentage of causes of death assigned by VAs remains undetermined. As physicians often do not agree upon a final COD classification, there remains substantial room to improve the standard VA method, potentially leading to a reduction in physician discordance in COD coding. METHODS: We present an extension of the current method of PCVA and compare it to the standard WHO-recommended procedure. We used VA data collected in the Nouna Health and Demographic Surveillance Site (NHDSS) between 2009 and 2010 using a locally-adapted version of an INDEPTH standard verbal autopsy questionnaire. Until 2009, physicians in the NHDSS followed the WHO method (Method 1). As an extension of Method 1, starting in 2010, the use of a panel of physicians was added to the coding process in the case where a third physician's final conclusions resulted in an undetermined COD (Method 2). Two independent samples of VA questionnaires were compared for the year 2009 (using Method 1) and the year 2010 (using Method 2). RESULTS: The WHO-recommended method used for 2009 yielded a high level of undetermined CODs, where the final coding was "undetermined" in 50.8% of all questionnaires due to disagreement among participating physicians (Method 1). By introducing a panel of physicians in 2010 for cases where the principal physicians disagreed on the cause of death, the revised method significantly reduced the proportion of undetermined CODs to 1.5% (Method 2). CONCLUSIONS: As the extended method of PCVA significantly improved the accuracy of the VA procedure, we suggest the adoption of this method for those countries where alternatives like computer-based VA coding are not available. Based on the results of our study, further research should be pursued.
Authors: Mesganaw Fantahun; Edward Fottrell; Yemane Berhane; Stig Wall; Ulf Högberg; Peter Byass Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2006-03-22 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Frank Baiden; Ayaga Bawah; Sidu Biai; Fred Binka; Ties Boerma; Peter Byass; Daniel Chandramohan; Somnath Chatterji; Cyril Engmann; Dieltiens Greet; Robert Jakob; Kathleen Kahn; Osamu Kunii; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray; Bernard Nahlen; Chalapati Rao; Osman Sankoh; Philip W Setel; Kenji Shibuya; Nadia Soleman; Linda Wright; Gonghuan Yang Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Rohina Joshi; Alan D Lopez; Stephen MacMahon; Srinath Reddy; Rakhi Dandona; Lalit Dandona; Bruce Neal Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Peter Byass; Edward Fottrell; Lan Huong Dao; Yemane Berhane; Tumani Corrah; Kathleen Kahn; Lulu Muhe; Duc Van Do Journal: Scand J Public Health Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Edward Fottrell; Peter Byass; Thomas W Ouedraogo; Cecile Tamini; Adjima Gbangou; Issiaka Sombié; Ulf Högberg; Karen H Witten; Sohinee Bhattacharya; Teklay Desta; Sylvia Deganus; Janet Tornui; Ann E Fitzmaurice; Nicolas Meda; Wendy J Graham Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2007-02-08
Authors: Johanna C Rankin; Eva Lorenz; Florian Neuhann; Maurice Yé; Ali Sié; Heiko Becher; Heribert Ramroth Journal: Malar J Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Arthur Mpimbaza; Scott Filler; Agaba Katureebe; Linda Quick; Daniel Chandramohan; Sarah G Staedke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Edite Vila Nova Rosário; Diogo Costa; Luís Timóteo; Ana Ambrósio Rodrigues; Jorge Varanda; Susana Vaz Nery; Miguel Brito Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Eric Diboulo; Ali Sié; Joacim Rocklöv; Louis Niamba; Maurice Yé; Cheik Bagagnan; Rainer Sauerborn Journal: Glob Health Action Date: 2012-11-23 Impact factor: 2.640
Authors: Daniel P Challe; Mathias L Kamugisha; Bruno P Mmbando; Filbert Francis; Mercy G Chiduo; Celine I Mandara; Samuel Gesase; Omari Abdul; Martha M Lemnge; Deus S Ishengoma Journal: Malar J Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 2.979