ArticlePloS one2026
A multi-country qualitative evaluation of rapid mortality surveillance during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow- and middle-income countries without well-functioning civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems struggle to obtain accurate and complete counts of total (i.e., all-cause) mortality, especially during a pandemic. The aim of this evaluation was to assess whether rapid mortality surveillance (RMS) provided timely and useful counts of deaths to inform pandemic response, despite competing demands on government and public health responders, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is the first published evaluation of efforts to test the feasibility, utility, and impact of efforts to improve or establish mortality surveillance.
methodsWe supported 13 low- and middle-income countries to implement RMS during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. From August to October 2021, we conducted a qualitative assessment of each country's progress.
resultsAnalysis of in-depth interviews with 16 respondents in 13 countries surfaced common themes related to facilitators of RMS implementation. These include 1) government ownership and buy-in; 2) data collection and digitalization; 3) interagency collaboration and data sharing; 4) data analysis and interpretation; and 5) data use for decision-making.
conclusionRobust and digitalized CRVS systems can serve the rapid mortality surveillance function well. For locations where digitalization and connectivity of systems are still improving, more feasible and fit-for-purpose approaches are needed. These findings should inform the development of CRVS mortality surveillance functions in low- and middle-income countries.
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.