↓ Skip to main content

A shortened verbal autopsy instrument for use in routine mortality surveillance systems

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A shortened verbal autopsy instrument for use in routine mortality surveillance systems
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0528-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Serina, Ian Riley, Andrea Stewart, Abraham D. Flaxman, Rafael Lozano, Meghan D Mooney, Richard Luning, Bernardo Hernandez, Robert Black, Ramesh Ahuja, Nurul Alam, Sayed Saidul Alam, Said Mohammed Ali, Charles Atkinson, Abdulla H. Baqui, Hafizur R. Chowdhury, Lalit Dandona, Rakhi Dandona, Emily Dantzer, Gary L Darmstadt, Vinita Das, Usha Dhingra, Arup Dutta, Wafaie Fawzi, Michael Freeman, Saman Gamage, Sara Gomez, Dilip Hensman, Spencer L. James, Rohina Joshi, Henry D. Kalter, Aarti Kumar, Vishwajeet Kumar, Marilla Lucero, Saurabh Mehta, Bruce Neal, Summer Lockett Ohno, David Phillips, Kelsey Pierce, Rajendra Prasad, Devarsetty Praveen, Zul Premji, Dolores Ramirez-Villalobos, Rasika Rampatige, Hazel Remolador, Minerva Romero, Mwanaidi Said, Diozele Sanvictores, Sunil Sazawal, Peter K. Streatfield, Veronica Tallo, Alireza Vadhatpour, Nandalal Wijesekara, Christopher J. L. Murray, Alan D. Lopez

Abstract

Verbal autopsy (VA) is recognized as the only feasible alternative to comprehensive medical certification of deaths in settings with no or unreliable vital registration systems. However, a barrier to its use by national registration systems has been the amount of time and cost needed for data collection. Therefore, a short VA instrument (VAI) is needed. In this paper we describe a shortened version of the VAI developed for the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) Gold Standard Verbal Autopsy Validation Study using a systematic approach. We used data from the PHMRC validation study. Using the Tariff 2.0 method, we first established a rank order of individual questions in the PHMRC VAI according to their importance in predicting causes of death. Second, we reduced the size of the instrument by dropping questions in reverse order of their importance. We assessed the predictive performance of the instrument as questions were removed at the individual level by calculating chance-corrected concordance and at the population level with cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) accuracy. Finally, the optimum size of the shortened instrument was determined using a first derivative analysis of the decline in performance as the size of the VA instrument decreased for adults, children, and neonates. The full PHMRC VAI had 183, 127, and 149 questions for adult, child, and neonatal deaths, respectively. The shortened instrument developed had 109, 69, and 67 questions, respectively, representing a decrease in the total number of questions of 40-55 %. The shortened instrument, with text, showed non-significant declines in CSMF accuracy from the full instrument with text of 0.4 %, 0.0 %, and 0.6 % for the adult, child, and neonatal modules, respectively. We developed a shortened VAI using a systematic approach, and assessed its performance when administered using hand-held electronic tablets and analyzed using Tariff 2.0. The length of a VA questionnaire was shortened by almost 50 % without a significant drop in performance. The shortened VAI developed reduces the burden of time and resources required for data collection and analysis of cause of death data in civil registration systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 137 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 20%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 37 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Computer Science 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 47 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,226,921
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#863
of 3,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,482
of 392,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#17
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 392,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.