↓ Skip to main content

A feasibility study on using smartphones to conduct short-version verbal autopsies in rural China

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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 feasibility study on using smartphones to conduct short-version verbal autopsies in rural China
Published in
Population Health Metrics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12963-016-0100-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing Zhang, Rohina Joshi, Jixin Sun, Samantha R. Rosenthal, Miao Tong, Cong Li, Rasika Rampatige, Meghan Mooney, Alan Lopez, Lijing L. Yan

Abstract

Currently there are two main sources of mortality data with cause of death assignments in China. Both sources-the Ministry of Health-Vital Registration system and the Chinese Disease Surveillance Point system-present their own challenges. A new approach to cause of death assignment is a smartphone-based shortened version of a verbal autopsy survey. This study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of this new method conducted by township health care providers (THP) and village doctors (VD) in rural China, where a large proportion of deaths occur in homes and cause of death data are inaccurate or lacking. The Population Health Metrics Research Consortium mobile phone-based shortened verbal autopsy questionnaire was made available on an Android system-based application, and cause of death was derived using the Tariff method (Tariff 2.0); we called this set of tools "msVA." msVA was administered to relatives of the deceased by six THPs and six VDs in 24 villages located in six townships of Luquan County, Hebei Province, China. Subsequently, interviews were conducted among 12 interviewers, 12 randomly selected respondents, and five study staff to assess the feasibility and acceptability of using msVA for mortality data collection. Between July 2013 and August 2013, 268 deaths took place in the study villages. Among the 268 deaths, 227 VAs were completed (nine refusals, 31 migrations and one loss of data due to breakdown of the smartphone). The average time for a VA interview was 21.5 ± 3.4 min (20.1 ± 3.5 min for THP and 23.2 ± 4.1 min for VD). Both THPs and VDs could be successful interviewers; the latter needed more training but had more willingness to implement msVA in the future. The interviews revealed that both interviewers and relatives of the deceased found msVA to be feasible, acceptable, and more desirable than traditional methods. The cost of conducting a new VA was $8.87 per death. Conduction of msVA by VDs in their own villages was feasible and acceptable in rural northern China. Broader implementation of msVA across rural China could potentially improve the coverage and quality of cause of death data, allowing for better national health evaluation and program planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Lecturer 5 8%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Computer Science 7 11%
Psychology 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,467,727
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#341
of 392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,272
of 343,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 343,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.