↓ Skip to main content

What is the optimal recall period for verbal autopsies? Validation study based on repeat interviews in three populations

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, October 2016
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
What is the optimal recall period for verbal autopsies? Validation study based on repeat interviews in three populations
Published in
Population Health Metrics, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12963-016-0105-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Serina, Ian Riley, Bernardo Hernandez, Abraham D. Flaxman, Devarsetty Praveen, Veronica Tallo, Rohina Joshi, Diozele Sanvictores, Andrea Stewart, Meghan D. Mooney, Christopher J. L. Murray, Alan D. Lopez

Abstract

One key contextual feature in Verbal Autopsy (VA) is the time between death and survey administration, or recall period. This study quantified the effect of recall period on VA performance by using a paired dataset in which two VAs were administered for a single decedent. This study used information from the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) Study, which collected VAs for "gold standard" cases where cause of death (COD) was supported by clinical criteria. This study repeated VA interviews within 3-52 months of death in PHMRC study sites in Andhra Pradesh, India, and Bohol and Manila, Philippines. The final dataset included 2113 deaths interviewed twice and with recall periods ranging from 0 to 52 months. COD was assigned by the Tariff method and its accuracy determined by comparison with the gold standard COD. The probability of a correct diagnosis of COD decreased by 0.55 % per month in the period after death. Site of data collection and survey module also affected the probability of Tariff Method correctly assigning a COD. The probability of a correct diagnosis in VAs collected 3-11 months after death will, on average, be 95.9 % of that in VAs collected within 3 months of death. These findings suggest that collecting VAs within 3 months of death may improve the quality of the information collected, taking the need for a period of mourning into account. This study substantiates the WHO recommendation that it is reasonable to collect VAs up to 1 year after death providing it is accepted that probability of a correct diagnosis is likely to decline month by month during this period.

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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 18 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,552,918
of 25,286,324 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#61
of 412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,352
of 324,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,286,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 324,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.