Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42172207›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

The acceptability of minimally invasive tissue sampling for cause of death determination in rural South Africa: A qualitative analysis.

Laura-Lynne Brandt, Gift Mathebula, Zokwane Lucky Mondlane, Sara Jewett, Kathleen Kahn, Ryan Gregory Wagner, Jessica Price

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Laura-Lynne BrandtSAMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0498-4029
Gift MathebulaSAMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Zokwane Lucky MondlaneSAMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Sara JewettHealth & Society Division, School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Kathleen KahnSAMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Ryan Gregory WagnerSAMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Jessica PriceSAMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4020-6850

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS) has been used to determine cause of death in various low- and middle-income countries. However, information on the acceptability of this procedure in community-based deaths is limited; most studies have focused on facility-based deaths among children. This qualitative study describes factors affecting the prospective acceptability of MITS for community deaths across all ages in a rural South African community and reviews the utility of the Theoretical Framework for Acceptability (TFA).

methodsThis qualitative study was conducted in the rural Agincourt Health and socio-Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) site in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Thematic analysis was conducted on 20 in-depth interviews with residents who had experienced a death within the previous 2 years and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders. FGD groups included community members, healthcare workers, traditional healers, religious leaders and mortuary workers.

resultsMITS was considered acceptable by interviewees, who posited that bereaved families had a strong desire to know cause of death, which would drive participation. Limited manipulation of the body and minimal disruption of burial practices were conditions that would make MITS more readily acceptable. Facilitators of participation included engaging with local traditional leaders, rigorous community education, transparency and openness regarding MITS activities, and the provision of emotional and psychological support to the bereaved. Whilst local beliefs did not forbid participation in MITS, acceptability was limited for deaths in traditional healers and infants as it would disrupt burial in these groups. Rumours of organ-trafficking during autopsies made some participants wary of the MITS and a lack of trust in the research team could discourage participation.

conclusionIn Agincourt, MITS is an acceptable procedure among community members that are interested in knowing cause of death. Thorough community engagement, open communication and an empathetic approach to bereaved families are crucial for building community support for the implementation of MITS. The TFA provides a valuable outline for the assessment of acceptability but failed to account for trust dynamics between providers and participants. We propose the modification of the TFA to include the domain "trust in providers".

Indexed as

Specimen HandlingAdolescentAdultAutopsyCause of DeathChildFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchRural PopulationSouth AfricaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42172207
PMCPMC13196941

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.