103
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Performance of the Tariff Method: validation of a simple additive algorithm for analysis of verbal autopsies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Verbal autopsies provide valuable information for studying mortality patterns in populations that lack reliable vital registration data. Methods for transforming verbal autopsy results into meaningful information for health workers and policymakers, however, are often costly or complicated to use. We present a simple additive algorithm, the Tariff Method (termed Tariff), which can be used for assigning individual cause of death and for determining cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) from verbal autopsy data.

          Methods

          Tariff calculates a score, or "tariff," for each cause, for each sign/symptom, across a pool of validated verbal autopsy data. The tariffs are summed for a given response pattern in a verbal autopsy, and this sum (score) provides the basis for predicting the cause of death in a dataset. We implemented this algorithm and evaluated the method's predictive ability, both in terms of chance-corrected concordance at the individual cause assignment level and in terms of CSMF accuracy at the population level. The analysis was conducted separately for adult, child, and neonatal verbal autopsies across 500 pairs of train-test validation verbal autopsy data.

          Results

          Tariff is capable of outperforming physician-certified verbal autopsy in most cases. In terms of chance-corrected concordance, the method achieves 44.5% in adults, 39% in children, and 23.9% in neonates. CSMF accuracy was 0.745 in adults, 0.709 in children, and 0.679 in neonates.

          Conclusions

          Verbal autopsies can be an efficient means of obtaining cause of death data, and Tariff provides an intuitive, reliable method for generating individual cause assignment and CSMFs. The method is transparent and flexible and can be readily implemented by users without training in statistics or computer science.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Verbal autopsy: methods in transition.

          Understanding of global health and changing morbidity and mortality is limited by inadequate measurement of population health. With fewer than one-third of deaths worldwide being assigned a cause, this long-standing dearth of information, almost exclusively in the world's poorest countries, hinders understanding of population health and limits opportunities for planning, monitoring, and evaluating interventions. In the absence of routine death registration, verbal autopsy (VA) methods are used to derive probable causes of death. Much effort has been put into refining the approach for specific purposes; however, there has been a lack of harmony regarding such efforts. Subsequently, a variety of methods and principles have been developed, often focusing on a single aspect of VA, and the resulting literature provides an inconsistent picture. By reviewing methodological and conceptual issues in VA, it is evident that VA cannot be reduced to a single one-size-fits-all tool. VA must be contextualized; given the lack of "gold standards," methodological developments should not be considered in terms of absolute validity but rather in terms of consistency, comparability, and adequacy for the intended purpose. There is an urgent need for clarified thinking about the overall objectives of population-level cause-of-death measurement and harmonized efforts in empirical methodological research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Population Health Metrics Research Consortium gold standard verbal autopsy validation study: design, implementation, and development of analysis datasets

            Background Verbal autopsy methods are critically important for evaluating the leading causes of death in populations without adequate vital registration systems. With a myriad of analytical and data collection approaches, it is essential to create a high quality validation dataset from different populations to evaluate comparative method performance and make recommendations for future verbal autopsy implementation. This study was undertaken to compile a set of strictly defined gold standard deaths for which verbal autopsies were collected to validate the accuracy of different methods of verbal autopsy cause of death assignment. Methods Data collection was implemented in six sites in four countries: Andhra Pradesh, India; Bohol, Philippines; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Mexico City, Mexico; Pemba Island, Tanzania; and Uttar Pradesh, India. The Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) developed stringent diagnostic criteria including laboratory, pathology, and medical imaging findings to identify gold standard deaths in health facilities as well as an enhanced verbal autopsy instrument based on World Health Organization (WHO) standards. A cause list was constructed based on the WHO Global Burden of Disease estimates of the leading causes of death, potential to identify unique signs and symptoms, and the likely existence of sufficient medical technology to ascertain gold standard cases. Blinded verbal autopsies were collected on all gold standard deaths. Results Over 12,000 verbal autopsies on deaths with gold standard diagnoses were collected (7,836 adults, 2,075 children, 1,629 neonates, and 1,002 stillbirths). Difficulties in finding sufficient cases to meet gold standard criteria as well as problems with misclassification for certain causes meant that the target list of causes for analysis was reduced to 34 for adults, 21 for children, and 10 for neonates, excluding stillbirths. To ensure strict independence for the validation of methods and assessment of comparative performance, 500 test-train datasets were created from the universe of cases, covering a range of cause-specific compositions. Conclusions This unique, robust validation dataset will allow scholars to evaluate the performance of different verbal autopsy analytic methods as well as instrument design. This dataset can be used to inform the implementation of verbal autopsies to more reliably ascertain cause of death in national health information systems.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Verbal autopsy: current practices and challenges

              Cause-of-death data derived from verbal autopsy (VA) are increasingly used for health planning, priority setting, monitoring and evaluation in countries with incomplete or no vital registration systems. In some regions of the world it is the only method available to obtain estimates on the distribution of causes of death. Currently, the VA method is routinely used at over 35 sites, mainly in Africa and Asia. In this paper, we present an overview of the VA process and the results of a review of VA tools and operating procedures used at demographic surveillance sites and sample vital registration systems. We asked for information from 36 field sites about field-operating procedures and reviewed 18 verbal autopsy questionnaires and 10 cause-of-death lists used in 13 countries. The format and content of VA questionnaires, field-operating procedures, cause-of-death lists and the procedures to derive causes of death from VA process varied substantially among sites. We discuss the consequences of using varied methods and conclude that the VA tools and procedures must be standardized and reliable in order to make accurate national and international comparisons of VA data. We also highlight further steps needed in the development of a standard VA process.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Popul Health Metr
                Population Health Metrics
                BioMed Central
                1478-7954
                2011
                4 August 2011
                : 9
                : 31
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, 2301 Fifth Ave., Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98121, USA
                Article
                1478-7954-9-31
                10.1186/1478-7954-9-31
                3160924
                21816107
                0e456ad2-24cc-4c44-bc92-8baffe501a48
                Copyright ©2011 James et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 April 2011
                : 4 August 2011
                Categories
                Research

                Health & Social care
                mortality,gold standard,validation,cause of death,cause-specific mortality fractions,tariff method,verbal autopsy

                Comments

                Comment on this article