ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024
Exploring the potential of introducing an electronic death registration system in South Africa.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spatial distribution of mortality: evidence from DIMAMO HDSS, Limpopo Province, South Africa.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite South Africa's well-established Civil Registration and Vital Statistics system (CRVS) and good completeness of death registration, challenges persist in terms of the quality of cause of death information and the delayed availability of mortality statistics. The introduction of an electronic medical certification of cause of death (eMCCD) system may offer opportunities to improve both the quality and timeliness of this information.
methodsThis study used an exploratory mixed methods design to investigate perceptions surrounding an electronic solution for registering deaths in South Africa. We conducted 14 key informant interviews from 23 key informants invited, surveyed 208 out of 250 targeted health workers and engaged with more than 500 South African health professionals in a participatory workshop about the acceptability of introducing an eMCCD. Mentimeter was used to obtain feedback from the participants. Rapid qualitative analysis methods were used to analyse the key informant interviews and descriptive statistics for the survey and workshop data. During the interpretation phase, qualitative and quantitative data were integrated according to key themes that emerged from the data.
resultsDuring the qualitative interviews, the underlying factors mentioned as contributing to inadequate mortality data quality included insufficient MCCD training, diseases subjected to stigma, limited access to and quality of patient health information, and a significant proportion of deaths occurring outside medical facilities. More than 80.8% of the surveyed health professionals (168/208) rated the importance of mortality statistics as high, but the current quality was rated as low or very low by 29.3% (61/208). An eMCCD appeared to be acceptable to most workshop participants who registered on Mentimeter and was perceived as a means to strengthen the timeliness of mortality information. However, 43.0% (68/158) of the workshop participants who responded to this question on Mentimeter saw poor internet use as the main barrier to introducing an online system.
conclusionsOur results shed light on critical aspects surrounding cause of death information in South Africa, as well as the challenges faced in maintaining the quality of such data. The findings suggest that the implementation of an eMCCD system could provide opportunities to strengthen the cause of death information in South Africa if it is designed to integrate into the current system and provide supplementary functionalities.
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.