Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Verbal autopsy is an increasingly important methodology for assigning causes to otherwise uncertified deaths, which amount to around 50% of global mortality and cause much uncertainty for health planning. The World Health Organization sets international standards for the structure of verbal autopsy interviews and for cause categories that can reasonably be derived from verbal autopsy data. In addition, computer models are needed to efficiently process large quantities of verbal autopsy interviews to assign causes of death in a standardised manner. Here, we present the InterVA-5 model, developed to align with the WHO-2016 verbal autopsy standard. This is a harmonising model that can process input data from WHO-2016, as well as earlier WHO-2012 and Tariff-2 formats, to generate standardised cause-specific mortality profiles for diverse contexts. The software development involved building on the earlier InterVA-4 model, and the expanded knowledge base required for InterVA-5 was informed by analyses from a training dataset drawn from the Population Health Metrics Research Collaboration verbal autopsy reference dataset, as well as expert input. Results The new model was evaluated against a test dataset of 6130 cases from the Population Health Metrics Research Collaboration and 4009 cases from the Afghanistan National Mortality Survey dataset. Both of these sources contained around three quarters of the input items from the WHO-2016, WHO-2012 and Tariff-2 formats. Cause-specific mortality fractions across all applicable WHO cause categories were compared between causes assigned in participating tertiary hospitals and InterVA-5 in the test dataset, with concordance correlation coefficients of 0.92 for children and 0.86 for adults. The InterVA-5 model’s capacity to handle different input formats was evaluated in the Afghanistan dataset, with concordance correlation coefficients of 0.97 and 0.96 between the WHO-2016 and the WHO-2012 format for children and adults respectively, and 0.92 and 0.87 between the WHO-2016 and the Tariff-2 format respectively. Conclusions Despite the inherent difficulties of determining “truth” in assigning cause of death, these findings suggest that the InterVA-5 model performs well and succeeds in harmonising across a range of input formats. As more primary data collected under WHO-2016 become available, it is likely that InterVA-5 will undergo minor re-versioning in the light of practical experience. The model is an important resource for measuring and evaluating cause-specific mortality globally.

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.

Over the past 70 years, significant advances have been made in determining the causes of death in populations not served by official medical certification of cause at the time of death using a technique known as Verbal Autopsy (VA). VA involves an interview of the family or caregivers of the deceased after a suitable bereavement interval about the circumstances, signs and symptoms of the deceased in the period leading to death. The VA interview data are then interpreted by physicians or, more recently, computer algorithms, to assign a probable cause of death. VA was originally developed and applied in field research settings. This paper traces the evolution of VA methods with special emphasis on the World Health Organization's (WHO)'s efforts to standardize VA instruments and methods for expanded use in routine health information and vital statistics systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These advances in VA methods are culminating this year with the release of the 2022 WHO Standard Verbal Autopsy (VA) Toolkit. This paper highlights the many contributions the late Professor Peter Byass made to the current VA standards and methods, most notably, the development of InterVA, the most commonly used automated computer algorithm for interpreting data collected in the WHO standard instruments, and the capacity building in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that he promoted. This paper also provides an overview of the methods used to improve the current WHO VA standards, a catalogue of the changes and improvements in the instruments, and a mapping of current applications of the WHO VA standard approach in LMICs. It also provides access to tools and guidance needed for VA implementation in Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Systems at scale.

Background Virtually all low- and middle-income countries are undergoing an epidemiological transition whose progression is more varied than experienced in high-income countries. Observed changes in mortality and disease patterns reveal that the transition in most low- and middle-income countries is characterized by reversals, partial changes and the simultaneous occurrence of different types of diseases of varying magnitude. Localized characterization of this shifting burden, frequently lacking, is essential to guide decentralised health and social systems on the effective targeting of limited resources. Based on a rigorous compilation of mortality data over two decades, this paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the epidemiological transition in a rural South African population. Methods We estimate overall and cause-specific hazards of death as functions of sex, age and time period from mortality data from the Agincourt Health and socio-Demographic Surveillance System and conduct statistical tests of changes and differentials to assess the progression of the epidemiological transition over the period 1993–2013. Results From the early 1990s until 2007 the population experienced a reversal in its epidemiological transition, driven mostly by increased HIV/AIDS and TB related mortality. In recent years, the transition is following a positive trajectory as a result of declining HIV/AIDS and TB related mortality. However, in most age groups the cause of death distribution is yet to reach the levels it occupied in the early 1990s. The transition is also characterized by persistent gender differences with more rapid positive progression in females than males. Conclusions This typical rural South African population is experiencing a protracted epidemiological transition. The intersection and interaction of HIV/AIDS and antiretroviral treatment, non-communicable disease risk factors and complex social and behavioral changes will impact on continued progress in reducing preventable mortality and improving health across the life course. Integrated healthcare planning and program delivery is required to improve access and adherence for HIV and non-communicable disease treatment. These findings from a local, rural setting over an extended period contribute to the evidence needed to inform further refinement and advancement of epidemiological transition theory.

Background Computer-coded verbal autopsy (CCVA) methods to assign causes of death (CODs) for medically unattended deaths have been proposed as an alternative to physician-certified verbal autopsy (PCVA). We conducted a systematic review of 19 published comparison studies (from 684 evaluated), most of which used hospital-based deaths as the reference standard. We assessed the performance of PCVA and five CCVA methods: Random Forest, Tariff, InterVA, King-Lu, and Simplified Symptom Pattern. Methods The reviewed studies assessed methods’ performance through various metrics: sensitivity, specificity, and chance-corrected concordance for coding individual deaths, and cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) error and CSMF accuracy at the population level. These results were summarized into means, medians, and ranges. Results The 19 studies ranged from 200 to 50,000 deaths per study (total over 116,000 deaths). Sensitivity of PCVA versus hospital-assigned COD varied widely by cause, but showed consistently high specificity. PCVA and CCVA methods had an overall chance-corrected concordance of about 50% or lower, across all ages and CODs. At the population level, the relative CSMF error between PCVA and hospital-based deaths indicated good performance for most CODs. Random Forest had the best CSMF accuracy performance, followed closely by PCVA and the other CCVA methods, but with lower values for InterVA-3. Conclusions There is no single best-performing coding method for verbal autopsies across various studies and metrics. There is little current justification for CCVA to replace PCVA, particularly as physician diagnosis remains the worldwide standard for clinical diagnosis on live patients. Further assessments and large accessible datasets on which to train and test combinations of methods are required, particularly for rural deaths without medical attention.

Coverage of civil registration and vital statistics varies globally, with most deaths in Africa and Asia remaining either unregistered or registered without cause of death. One important constraint has been a lack of fit-for-purpose tools for registering deaths and assigning causes in situations where no doctor is involved. Verbal autopsy (interviewing care-givers and witnesses to deaths and interpreting their information into causes of death) is the only available solution. Automated interpretation of verbal autopsy data into cause of death information is essential for rapid, consistent and affordable processing. Verbal autopsy archives covering 54 182 deaths from five African and Asian countries were sourced on the basis of their geographical, epidemiological and methodological diversity, with existing physician-coded causes of death attributed. These data were unified into the WHO 2012 verbal autopsy standard format, and processed using the InterVA-4 model. Cause-specific mortality fractions from InterVA-4 and physician codes were calculated for each of 60 WHO 2012 cause categories, by age group, sex and source. Results from the two approaches were assessed for concordance and ratios of fractions by cause category. As an alternative metric, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test with two one-sided tests for stochastic equivalence was used. The overall concordance correlation coefficient between InterVA-4 and physician codes was 0.83 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91) and this increased to 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99) when HIV/AIDS and pulmonary TB deaths were combined into a single category. Over half (53%) of the cause category ratios between InterVA-4 and physician codes by source were not significantly different from unity at the 99% level, increasing to 62% by age group. Wilcoxon tests for stochastic equivalence also demonstrated equivalence. These findings show strong concordance between InterVA-4 and physician-coded findings over this large and diverse data set. Although these analyses cannot prove that either approach constitutes absolute truth, there was high public health equivalence between the findings. Given the urgent need for adequate cause of death data from settings where deaths currently pass unregistered, and since the WHO 2012 verbal autopsy standard and InterVA-4 tools represent relatively simple, cheap and available methods for determining cause of death on a large scale, they should be used as current tools of choice to fill gaps in cause of death data.

Background Verbal autopsies (VA) are increasingly used in low- and middle-income countries where most causes of death (COD) occur at home without medical attention, and home deaths differ substantially from hospital deaths. Hence, there is no plausible “standard” against which VAs for home deaths may be validated. Previous studies have shown contradictory performance of automated methods compared to physician-based classification of CODs. We sought to compare the performance of the classic naive Bayes classifier (NBC) versus existing automated classifiers, using physician-based classification as the reference. Methods We compared the performance of NBC, an open-source Tariff Method (OTM), and InterVA-4 on three datasets covering about 21,000 child and adult deaths: the ongoing Million Death Study in India, and health and demographic surveillance sites in Agincourt, South Africa and Matlab, Bangladesh. We applied several training and testing splits of the data to quantify the sensitivity and specificity compared to physician coding for individual CODs and to test the cause-specific mortality fractions at the population level. Results The NBC achieved comparable sensitivity (median 0.51, range 0.48-0.58) to OTM (median 0.50, range 0.41-0.51), with InterVA-4 having lower sensitivity (median 0.43, range 0.36-0.47) in all three datasets, across all CODs. Consistency of CODs was comparable for NBC and InterVA-4 but lower for OTM. NBC and OTM achieved better performance when using a local rather than a non-local training dataset. At the population level, NBC scored the highest cause-specific mortality fraction accuracy across the datasets (median 0.88, range 0.87-0.93), followed by InterVA-4 (median 0.66, range 0.62-0.73) and OTM (median 0.57, range 0.42-0.58). Conclusions NBC outperforms current similar COD classifiers at the population level. Nevertheless, no current automated classifier adequately replicates physician classification for individual CODs. There is a need for further research on automated classifiers using local training and test data in diverse settings prior to recommending any replacement of physician-based classification of verbal autopsies.

Background In most African countries where a legitimate vital registration system is lacking, physicians often review verbal autopsy (VA) data to determine the cause of death, while there are concerns about the routine practicality, accuracy, and reliability of this procedure. In Ethiopia where the burden of tuberculosis (TB) remains unacceptably high, reliable VA data are needed to guide intervention strategies. This study aimed to validate the InterVA model against the physician VA in tracking TB-related mortality in Ethiopia. Methods From a sample of deaths in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, VAs were conducted on TB-related mortality, physician-certified verbal autopsy (PCVA) through multiple steps to ascertain the causes of death. InterVA model was used to interpret the causes of death. Estimates of TB-related deaths between physician reviews and the InterVA model were compared using Cohen’s Kappa (k), Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, sensitivity, and specificity to compare agreement between PCVA and InterVA. Results A total of 8952 completed PCVA were used. The InterVA model had an optimal likelihood cut-off point sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI: 59.0–69.0) and specificity of 0.95 (95% CI: 94.9–95.8). The area under the ROC curve was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78–0.81). The level of agreement between physician reviews and the InterVA model to identifying TB-related mortality was moderate (k = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.57–0.61). Conclusion The InterVA model is a viable alternative to physician review for tracking TB-related causes of death in Ethiopia. From a public health perspective, InterVA helps to analyze the underlying causes of TB-related deaths cost-effectively using routine survey data and translate to policies and strategies in resource-constrained countries.

Verbal autopsy (VA) is a systematic approach for determining causes of death (CoD) in populations without routine medical certification. It has mainly been used in research contexts and involved relatively lengthy interviews. Our objective here is to describe the process used to shorten, simplify, and standardise the VA process to make it feasible for application on a larger scale such as in routine civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems. A literature review of existing VA instruments was undertaken. The World Health Organization (WHO) then facilitated an international consultation process to review experiences with existing VA instruments, including those from WHO, the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and their Health in Developing Countries (INDEPTH) Network, InterVA, and the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC). In an expert meeting, consideration was given to formulating a workable VA CoD list [with mapping to the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) CoD] and to the viability and utility of existing VA interview questions, with a view to undertaking systematic simplification. A revised VA CoD list was compiled enabling mapping of all ICD-10 CoD onto 62 VA cause categories, chosen on the grounds of public health significance as well as potential for ascertainment from VA. A set of 221 indicators for inclusion in the revised VA instrument was developed on the basis of accumulated experience, with appropriate skip patterns for various population sub-groups. The duration of a VA interview was reduced by about 40% with this new approach. The revised VA instrument resulting from this consultation process is presented here as a means of making it available for widespread use and evaluation. It is envisaged that this will be used in conjunction with automated models for assigning CoD from VA data, rather than involving physicians.