Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27875532›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2016

Willingness to Know the Cause of Death and Hypothetical Acceptability of the Minimally Invasive Autopsy in Six Diverse African and Asian Settings: A Mixed Methods Socio-Behavioural Study.

Maria Maixenchs, Rui Anselmo, Emily Zielinski-Gutiérrez, Frank O Odhiambo, Clarah Akello, Maureen Ondire, S Shujaat H Zaidi, Sajid Bashir Soofi, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Kounandji Diarra and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.

Maria MaixenchsCentro de Investigação em Saúde da Manhiça, Maputo, Mozambique.
Rui AnselmoCentro de Investigação em Saúde da Manhiça, Maputo, Mozambique.
Emily Zielinski-GutiérrezCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC-Kenya), Nairobi, Kenya.
Frank O OdhiamboKenya Medical Research Institute, Centre for Global Health Research, Kisumu, Kenya.
Clarah AkelloKenya Medical Research Institute, Centre for Global Health Research, Kisumu, Kenya.
Maureen OndireKenya Medical Research Institute, Centre for Global Health Research, Kisumu, Kenya.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8801-7258
S Shujaat H ZaidiCentre of Excellence in Women and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Sajid Bashir SoofiCentre of Excellence in Women and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Zulfiqar A BhuttaCentre of Excellence in Women and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Kounandji DiarraCentre pour le Développement des Vaccins (CVD-Mali), Bamako, Mali.
Mahamane DjitèyeCentre pour le Développement des Vaccins (CVD-Mali), Bamako, Mali.
Roukiatou DembéléCentre pour le Développement des Vaccins (CVD-Mali), Bamako, Mali.
Samba SowCentre pour le Développement des Vaccins (CVD-Mali), Bamako, Mali.
Pamela Cathérine Angoissa MinsokoCentre de Recherches Médicales de Lambaréné, Hôpital Albert Schweitzer, Lambaréné, Gabon.
Selidji Todagbe AgnandjiCentre de Recherches Médicales de Lambaréné, Hôpital Albert Schweitzer, Lambaréné, Gabon.
Bertrand LellCentre de Recherches Médicales de Lambaréné, Hôpital Albert Schweitzer, Lambaréné, Gabon.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1427-3002
Mamudo R IsmailDepartment of Pathology, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.
Carla CarrilhoDepartment of Pathology, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.
Jaume OrdiISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Clara MenéndezCentro de Investigação em Saúde da Manhiça, Maputo, Mozambique.
Quique BassatCentro de Investigação em Saúde da Manhiça, Maputo, Mozambique.
Khátia MunguambeCentro de Investigação em Saúde da Manhiça, Maputo, Mozambique.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3888-5126
Centre Pour le Développement des Vaccins-Mali · MLAga Khan University · PKAlbert Schweitzer Hospital · GAHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats · ESKenya Medical Research Institute · KECenters for Disease Control and Prevention · KEEduardo Mondlane University · MZManhiça Health Research Centre · MZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) is being investigated as an alternative to complete diagnostic autopsies for cause of death (CoD) investigation. Before potential implementation of the MIA in settings where post-mortem procedures are unusual, a thorough assessment of its feasibility and acceptability is essential. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a socio-behavioural study at the community level to understand local attitudes and perceptions related to death and the hypothetical feasibility and acceptability of conducting MIAs in six distinct settings in Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, and Pakistan. A total of 504 interviews (135 key informants, 175 health providers [including formal health professionals and traditional or informal health providers], and 194 relatives of deceased people) were conducted. The constructs "willingness to know the CoD" and "hypothetical acceptability of MIAs" were quantified and analysed using the framework analysis approach to compare the occurrence of themes related to acceptability across participants. Overall, 75% (379/504) of the participants would be willing to know the CoD of a relative. The overall hypothetical acceptability of MIA on a relative was 73% (366/504). The idea of the MIA was acceptable because of its perceived simplicity and rapidity and particularly for not "mutilating" the body. Further, MIAs were believed to help prevent infectious diseases, address hereditary diseases, clarify the CoD, and avoid witchcraft accusations and conflicts within families. The main concerns regarding the procedure included the potential breach of confidentiality on the CoD, the misperception of organ removal, and the incompatibility with some religious beliefs. Formal health professionals were concerned about possible contradictions between the MIA findings and the clinical pre-mortem diagnoses. Acceptability of the MIA was equally high among Christian and Islamic communities. However, in the two predominantly Muslim countries, MIA acceptability was higher in Mali than in Pakistan. While the results of the study are encouraging for the potential use of the MIA for CoD investigation in low-income settings, they remain hypothetical, with a need for confirmation with real-life MIA implementation and in populations beyond Health and Demographic Surveillance System areas.

conclusionsThis study showed a high level of interest in knowing the CoD of a relative and a high hypothetical acceptability of MIAs as a tool for CoD investigation across six distinct settings. These findings anticipate potential barriers and facilitators, both at the health facility and community level, essential for local tailoring of recommendations for future MIA implementation.

Indexed as

Cause of DeathDeathAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAutopsyFemaleGabonHumansKenyaMaleMaliMiddle AgedMozambiquePakistanYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27875532
PMCPMC5119724
OpenAlexW2556162574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.