The quality and diagnostic value of open narratives in verbal autopsy: A mixed-methods analysis of partnered interviews from Malawi Data collection, quality, and reporting

C. King, C. Zamawe, M. Banda, Naor Bar-Zeev, J. Beard, J. Bird, A. Costello, P. Kazembe, D. Osrin, E. Fottrell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Verbal autopsy (VA), the process of interviewing a deceased's family or caregiver about signs and symptoms leading up to death, employs tools that ask a series of closed questions and can include an open narrative where respondents give an unprompted account of events preceding death. The extent to which an individual interviewer, who generally does not interpret the data, affects the quality of this data, and therefore the assigned cause of death, is poorly documented. We aimed to examine inter-interviewer reliability of open narrative and closed question data gathered during VA interviews. Methods: During the introduction of VA data collection, as part of a larger study in Mchinji district, Malawi, we conducted partner interviews whereby two interviewers independently recorded open narrative and closed questions during the same interview. Closed questions were collected using a smartphone application (mobile-InterVA) and open narratives using pen and paper. We used mixed methods of analysis to evaluate the differences between recorded responses to open narratives and closed questions, causes of death assigned, and additional information gathered by open narrative. Results: Eighteen partner interviews were conducted, with complete data for 11 pairs. Comparing closed questions between interviewers, the median number of differences was 1 (IQR: 0.5-3.5) of an average 65 answered; mean inter-interviewer concordance was 92 % (IQR: 92-99 %). Discrepancies in open narratives were summarized in five categories: demographics, history and care-seeking, diagnoses and symptoms, treatment and cultural. Most discrepancies were seen in the reporting of diagnoses and symptoms (e.g., malaria diagnosis); only one pair demonstrated no clear differences. The average number of clinical symptoms reported was 9 in open narratives and 20 in the closed questions. Open narratives contained additional information on health seeking and social issues surrounding deaths, which closed questions did not gather. Conclusions: The information gleaned during open narratives was subject to inter-interviewer variability and contained a limited number of symptom indicators, suggesting that their use for assigning cause of death is questionable. However, they contained rich information on care-seeking, healthcare provision and social factors in the lead-up to death, which may be a valuable source of information for promoting accountable health services.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number115
JournalBMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Malawi
Autopsy
Research Design
Interviews
Cause of Death
Data Accuracy
Mobile Applications
Caregivers
Malaria
Signs and Symptoms
Health Services
History
Demography
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Closed questions
  • Open narrative
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Verbal autopsy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

The quality and diagnostic value of open narratives in verbal autopsy : A mixed-methods analysis of partnered interviews from Malawi Data collection, quality, and reporting. / King, C.; Zamawe, C.; Banda, M.; Bar-Zeev, Naor; Beard, J.; Bird, J.; Costello, A.; Kazembe, P.; Osrin, D.; Fottrell, E.

In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 115, 01.02.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5567161528a3462e9a30aa15b8a0eb66,
title = "The quality and diagnostic value of open narratives in verbal autopsy: A mixed-methods analysis of partnered interviews from Malawi Data collection, quality, and reporting",
abstract = "Background: Verbal autopsy (VA), the process of interviewing a deceased's family or caregiver about signs and symptoms leading up to death, employs tools that ask a series of closed questions and can include an open narrative where respondents give an unprompted account of events preceding death. The extent to which an individual interviewer, who generally does not interpret the data, affects the quality of this data, and therefore the assigned cause of death, is poorly documented. We aimed to examine inter-interviewer reliability of open narrative and closed question data gathered during VA interviews. Methods: During the introduction of VA data collection, as part of a larger study in Mchinji district, Malawi, we conducted partner interviews whereby two interviewers independently recorded open narrative and closed questions during the same interview. Closed questions were collected using a smartphone application (mobile-InterVA) and open narratives using pen and paper. We used mixed methods of analysis to evaluate the differences between recorded responses to open narratives and closed questions, causes of death assigned, and additional information gathered by open narrative. Results: Eighteen partner interviews were conducted, with complete data for 11 pairs. Comparing closed questions between interviewers, the median number of differences was 1 (IQR: 0.5-3.5) of an average 65 answered; mean inter-interviewer concordance was 92 {\%} (IQR: 92-99 {\%}). Discrepancies in open narratives were summarized in five categories: demographics, history and care-seeking, diagnoses and symptoms, treatment and cultural. Most discrepancies were seen in the reporting of diagnoses and symptoms (e.g., malaria diagnosis); only one pair demonstrated no clear differences. The average number of clinical symptoms reported was 9 in open narratives and 20 in the closed questions. Open narratives contained additional information on health seeking and social issues surrounding deaths, which closed questions did not gather. Conclusions: The information gleaned during open narratives was subject to inter-interviewer variability and contained a limited number of symptom indicators, suggesting that their use for assigning cause of death is questionable. However, they contained rich information on care-seeking, healthcare provision and social factors in the lead-up to death, which may be a valuable source of information for promoting accountable health services.",
keywords = "Bias, Closed questions, Open narrative, Sub-Saharan Africa, Verbal autopsy",
author = "C. King and C. Zamawe and M. Banda and Naor Bar-Zeev and J. Beard and J. Bird and A. Costello and P. Kazembe and D. Osrin and E. Fottrell",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1186/s12874-016-0115-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
journal = "BMC Medical Research Methodology",
issn = "1471-2288",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The quality and diagnostic value of open narratives in verbal autopsy

T2 - A mixed-methods analysis of partnered interviews from Malawi Data collection, quality, and reporting

AU - King, C.

AU - Zamawe, C.

AU - Banda, M.

AU - Bar-Zeev, Naor

AU - Beard, J.

AU - Bird, J.

AU - Costello, A.

AU - Kazembe, P.

AU - Osrin, D.

AU - Fottrell, E.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Background: Verbal autopsy (VA), the process of interviewing a deceased's family or caregiver about signs and symptoms leading up to death, employs tools that ask a series of closed questions and can include an open narrative where respondents give an unprompted account of events preceding death. The extent to which an individual interviewer, who generally does not interpret the data, affects the quality of this data, and therefore the assigned cause of death, is poorly documented. We aimed to examine inter-interviewer reliability of open narrative and closed question data gathered during VA interviews. Methods: During the introduction of VA data collection, as part of a larger study in Mchinji district, Malawi, we conducted partner interviews whereby two interviewers independently recorded open narrative and closed questions during the same interview. Closed questions were collected using a smartphone application (mobile-InterVA) and open narratives using pen and paper. We used mixed methods of analysis to evaluate the differences between recorded responses to open narratives and closed questions, causes of death assigned, and additional information gathered by open narrative. Results: Eighteen partner interviews were conducted, with complete data for 11 pairs. Comparing closed questions between interviewers, the median number of differences was 1 (IQR: 0.5-3.5) of an average 65 answered; mean inter-interviewer concordance was 92 % (IQR: 92-99 %). Discrepancies in open narratives were summarized in five categories: demographics, history and care-seeking, diagnoses and symptoms, treatment and cultural. Most discrepancies were seen in the reporting of diagnoses and symptoms (e.g., malaria diagnosis); only one pair demonstrated no clear differences. The average number of clinical symptoms reported was 9 in open narratives and 20 in the closed questions. Open narratives contained additional information on health seeking and social issues surrounding deaths, which closed questions did not gather. Conclusions: The information gleaned during open narratives was subject to inter-interviewer variability and contained a limited number of symptom indicators, suggesting that their use for assigning cause of death is questionable. However, they contained rich information on care-seeking, healthcare provision and social factors in the lead-up to death, which may be a valuable source of information for promoting accountable health services.

AB - Background: Verbal autopsy (VA), the process of interviewing a deceased's family or caregiver about signs and symptoms leading up to death, employs tools that ask a series of closed questions and can include an open narrative where respondents give an unprompted account of events preceding death. The extent to which an individual interviewer, who generally does not interpret the data, affects the quality of this data, and therefore the assigned cause of death, is poorly documented. We aimed to examine inter-interviewer reliability of open narrative and closed question data gathered during VA interviews. Methods: During the introduction of VA data collection, as part of a larger study in Mchinji district, Malawi, we conducted partner interviews whereby two interviewers independently recorded open narrative and closed questions during the same interview. Closed questions were collected using a smartphone application (mobile-InterVA) and open narratives using pen and paper. We used mixed methods of analysis to evaluate the differences between recorded responses to open narratives and closed questions, causes of death assigned, and additional information gathered by open narrative. Results: Eighteen partner interviews were conducted, with complete data for 11 pairs. Comparing closed questions between interviewers, the median number of differences was 1 (IQR: 0.5-3.5) of an average 65 answered; mean inter-interviewer concordance was 92 % (IQR: 92-99 %). Discrepancies in open narratives were summarized in five categories: demographics, history and care-seeking, diagnoses and symptoms, treatment and cultural. Most discrepancies were seen in the reporting of diagnoses and symptoms (e.g., malaria diagnosis); only one pair demonstrated no clear differences. The average number of clinical symptoms reported was 9 in open narratives and 20 in the closed questions. Open narratives contained additional information on health seeking and social issues surrounding deaths, which closed questions did not gather. Conclusions: The information gleaned during open narratives was subject to inter-interviewer variability and contained a limited number of symptom indicators, suggesting that their use for assigning cause of death is questionable. However, they contained rich information on care-seeking, healthcare provision and social factors in the lead-up to death, which may be a valuable source of information for promoting accountable health services.

KW - Bias

KW - Closed questions

KW - Open narrative

KW - Sub-Saharan Africa

KW - Verbal autopsy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958102847&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958102847&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12874-016-0115-5

DO - 10.1186/s12874-016-0115-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 26830814

AN - SCOPUS:84958102847

VL - 16

JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology

JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology

SN - 1471-2288

IS - 1

M1 - 115

ER -