ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2012
Birth attendants as perinatal verbal autopsy respondents in low- and middle-income countries: a viable alternative?
Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of vital events tracking by community health agents.Global health action · 2019Pooled it
- The ethical implications of verbal autopsy: responding to emotional and moral distress.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Challenges in classification and assignment of causes of stillbirths in low- and lower middle-income countries.Seminars in perinatology · 2019Review
- Transformative Innovations in Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health over the Next 20 Years.PLoS medicine · 2016Review
- The Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research: A model of capacity-building research.Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the feasibility of using birth attendants instead of bereaved mothers as perinatal verbal autopsy respondents.
methodsVerbal autopsy interviews for early neonatal deaths and stillbirths were conducted separately among mothers (reference standard) and birth attendants in 38 communities in four developing countries. Concordance between maternal and attendant responses was calculated for all questions, for categories of questions and for individual questions. The sensitivity and specificity of individual questions with the birth attendant as respondent were assessed.
findingsFor early neonatal deaths, concordance across all questions was 94%. Concordance was at least 95% for more than half the questions on maternal medical history, birth attendance and neonate characteristics. Concordance on any given question was never less than 80%. Sensitivity and specificity varied across individual questions, more than 80% of which had a sensitivity of at least 80% and a specificity of at least 90%. For stillbirths, concordance across all questions was 93%. Concordance was 95% or greater more than half the time for questions on birth attendance, site of delivery and stillborn characteristics. Sensitivity and specificity varied across individual questions. Over 60% of the questions had a sensitivity of at least 80% and over 80% of them had a specificity of at least 90%. Overall, the causes of death established through verbal autopsy were similar, regardless of respondent.
conclusionBirth attendants can substitute for bereaved mothers as verbal autopsy respondents. The questions in existing harmonized verbal autopsy questionnaires need further refinement, as their sensitivity and specificity differ widely.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.