Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33614993›Full record

Trial reportBMJ paediatrics open2021

Added value of an open narrative in verbal autopsies: a mixed-methods evaluation from Malawi.

Patricia Loh, Edward Fottrell, James Beard, Naor Bar-Zeev, Tambosi Phiri, Masford Banda, Charles Makwenda, Jon Bird, Carina King

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ paediatrics open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Verbal autopsy instruments for 'causes and circumstances' surrounding drowning deaths in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Patricia LohInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Edward FottrellInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
James BeardInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Naor Bar-ZeevMalawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
Tambosi PhiriMaiMwana Project, Mchinji, Malawi.
Masford BandaMaiMwana Project, Mchinji, Malawi.
Charles MakwendaParent and Child Health Initiative, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Jon BirdDepartment of Computer Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Carina KingInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6885-6716
University College London · GBJohns Hopkins University · USKarolinska Institutet · SEPublic Health Institute of Malawi · MWUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 085417MA/Z/08/ZWellcome Trust WT091909/B/10/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The WHO standardised verbal autopsy (VA) instrument includes closed questions, ascertaining signs and symptoms of illness preceding death, and an optional open narrative. As VA analyses increasingly use automated algorithms, inclusion of narratives should be justified. We evaluated the role of open narratives on VA processes, data quality and respondent's emotional stress. Methods: A mixed-methods analysis was conducted using VA data for child deaths (0-59 months), between April 2013 and November 2016 in Mchinji district, Malawi. Deaths were prospectively randomised to receive closed questions only or open narrative followed by closed questions. On concluding the VA, interviewers self-completed questions on respondents' emotional stress. Logistic regression was used to determine associations with visible emotional distress during VAs. A group discussion with interviewers was conducted at the project end, to understand field experiences and explore future recommendations; data were coded using deductive themes. Results: 2509 VAs were included, with 49.8% (n=1341) randomised to open narratives. Narratives lasted a median of 7 minuntes (range: 1-113). Interviewers described improved rapport and felt narratives improved data quality, although there was no difference in the proportion of deaths with an indeterminate cause using an automated algorithm (5.3% vs 6.1%). The majority of respondents did not display visible emotional stress (81%). Those with a narrative had higher, but not statistically significant, odds of emotional distress (adjusted OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.47). Factors associated with emotional stress were: infant deaths versus neonates; deaths at a health centre or en-route to hospital versus home; and higher socioeconomic status. Non-parental respondents and increased time between death and interview were associated with lower odds of emotional distress. Conclusion: Conducting an open narrative may help build rapport, something valued by the interviewers. However, additional time and emotional burdens should be further justified, with quality and utility of narratives promoted through standardised recommendations.

Indexed as

AutopsyCause of DeathChild, PreschoolData CollectionHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalawiNarrationdata collectionethicsmortalityqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID33614993
PMCPMC7871275
OpenAlexW3127206950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.