Loading…
Mixed-methods analysis of select issues reported in the 2016 World Health Organization verbal autopsy questionnaire
Background Use of a standardized verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) instrument, can improve the consistency and reliability of the data it collects. Systematically revising a questionnaire, however, requires evidence about the performance of its questions....
Saved in:
Published in: | PloS one 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0274304-e0274304 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-f0c56f8112dae576661087e3ce8126d9ccdb837de8689d099fadb3c8c71f636a3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-f0c56f8112dae576661087e3ce8126d9ccdb837de8689d099fadb3c8c71f636a3 |
container_end_page | e0274304 |
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | e0274304 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Nichols, Erin Pettrone, Kristen Vickers, Brent Gebrehiwet, Hermon Surek-Clark, Clarissa Leitao, Jordana Amouzou, Agbessi Blau, Dianna M Bradshaw, Debbie Abdelilah, El Marnissi Groenewald, Pamela Munkombwe, Brian Mwango, Chomba Notzon, F. Sam Biko Odhiambo, Steve Scanlon, Paul |
description | Background Use of a standardized verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) instrument, can improve the consistency and reliability of the data it collects. Systematically revising a questionnaire, however, requires evidence about the performance of its questions. The purpose of this investigation was to use a mixed methods approach to evaluate the performance of questions related to 14 previously reported issues in the 2016 version of the WHO questionnaire, where there were concerns of potential confusion, redundancy, or inability of the respondent to answer the question. The results from this mixed methods analysis are discussed across common themes that may have contributed to the underperformance of questions and have been compiled to inform decisions around the revision of the current VA instrument. Methods Quantitative analysis of 19,150 VAs for neonates, children, and adults from five project teams implementing VAs predominately in Sub-Saharan Africa included frequency distributions and cross-tabulations to evaluate response patterns among related questions. The association of respondent characteristics and response patterns was evaluated using prevalence ratios. Qualitative analysis included results from cognitive interviewing, an approach that provides a detailed understanding of the meanings and processes that respondents use to answer interview questions. Cognitive interviews were conducted among 149 participants in Morocco and Zambia. Findings from the qualitative and quantitative analyses were triangulated to identify common themes. Results Four broad themes contributing to the underperformance or redundancy within the instrument were identified: question sequence, overlap within the question series, questions outside the frame of reference of the respondent, and questions needing clarification. The series of questions associated with one of the 14 identified issues (the series of questions on injuries) related to question sequence; seven (tobacco use, sores, breast swelling, abdominal problem, vomiting, vaccination, and baby size) demonstrated similar response patterns among questions within each series capturing overlapping information. Respondent characteristics, including relationship to the deceased and whether or not the respondent lived with the deceased, were associated with differing frequencies of non-substantive responses in three question series (female health related issues, tobacco use, and bab |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0274304 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2722687078</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A721418567</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b503be5dce744cce87ee95b352c8da04</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A721418567</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-f0c56f8112dae576661087e3ce8126d9ccdb837de8689d099fadb3c8c71f636a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1trFDEUxwdRbK1-A8GAIPqway4zSeZFKEXtQqXg9TFkkjO7WWYna5IpXT-92d1ROtIHyUPCye_8z4VziuI5wXPCBHm79kPodTff-h7mmIqS4fJBcUpqRmecYvbwzvukeBLjGuOKSc4fFycsGzll-LSIn9wt2NkG0srbiHRW3EUXkW9RhA5MQi7GASIKsPUhgUWuR2kFiGLC0Q8fOosuQXdpha7DUvful07O9-gGQqM7pIfkt3GHfmaJvb3XLsDT4lGruwjPxvus-Pbh_deLy9nV9cfFxfnVzHBep1mLTcVbSQi1GirBOSdYCmAGJKHc1sbYRjJhQXJZW1zXrbYNM9II0nLGNTsrXhx1t52PauxXVFRQyqXAQmZicSSs12u1DW6jw0557dTB4MNS6ZCc6UA1FWYNVNaAKEuTcxAAddWwihppNS6z1rsx2tBsIHN9CrqbiE5_erdSS3-j6qpkUlRZ4PUoEPyhX2rjooGu0z344ZA3I1WZa8_oy3_Q-6sbqaXOBbi-9Tmu2Yuqc0FJSWTFRabm91D5WNg4k4erddk-cXgzcchMgtu01EOMavHl8_-z19-n7Ks77OowVNF3w35u4hQsj6AJPsYA7d8mE6z2u_GnG2q_G2rcDfYbPj8BFA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2722687078</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mixed-methods analysis of select issues reported in the 2016 World Health Organization verbal autopsy questionnaire</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Nichols, Erin ; Pettrone, Kristen ; Vickers, Brent ; Gebrehiwet, Hermon ; Surek-Clark, Clarissa ; Leitao, Jordana ; Amouzou, Agbessi ; Blau, Dianna M ; Bradshaw, Debbie ; Abdelilah, El Marnissi ; Groenewald, Pamela ; Munkombwe, Brian ; Mwango, Chomba ; Notzon, F. Sam ; Biko Odhiambo, Steve ; Scanlon, Paul</creator><contributor>Menezes, Ritesh G.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Erin ; Pettrone, Kristen ; Vickers, Brent ; Gebrehiwet, Hermon ; Surek-Clark, Clarissa ; Leitao, Jordana ; Amouzou, Agbessi ; Blau, Dianna M ; Bradshaw, Debbie ; Abdelilah, El Marnissi ; Groenewald, Pamela ; Munkombwe, Brian ; Mwango, Chomba ; Notzon, F. Sam ; Biko Odhiambo, Steve ; Scanlon, Paul ; Menezes, Ritesh G.</creatorcontrib><description>Background Use of a standardized verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) instrument, can improve the consistency and reliability of the data it collects. Systematically revising a questionnaire, however, requires evidence about the performance of its questions. The purpose of this investigation was to use a mixed methods approach to evaluate the performance of questions related to 14 previously reported issues in the 2016 version of the WHO questionnaire, where there were concerns of potential confusion, redundancy, or inability of the respondent to answer the question. The results from this mixed methods analysis are discussed across common themes that may have contributed to the underperformance of questions and have been compiled to inform decisions around the revision of the current VA instrument. Methods Quantitative analysis of 19,150 VAs for neonates, children, and adults from five project teams implementing VAs predominately in Sub-Saharan Africa included frequency distributions and cross-tabulations to evaluate response patterns among related questions. The association of respondent characteristics and response patterns was evaluated using prevalence ratios. Qualitative analysis included results from cognitive interviewing, an approach that provides a detailed understanding of the meanings and processes that respondents use to answer interview questions. Cognitive interviews were conducted among 149 participants in Morocco and Zambia. Findings from the qualitative and quantitative analyses were triangulated to identify common themes. Results Four broad themes contributing to the underperformance or redundancy within the instrument were identified: question sequence, overlap within the question series, questions outside the frame of reference of the respondent, and questions needing clarification. The series of questions associated with one of the 14 identified issues (the series of questions on injuries) related to question sequence; seven (tobacco use, sores, breast swelling, abdominal problem, vomiting, vaccination, and baby size) demonstrated similar response patterns among questions within each series capturing overlapping information. Respondent characteristics, including relationship to the deceased and whether or not the respondent lived with the deceased, were associated with differing frequencies of non-substantive responses in three question series (female health related issues, tobacco use, and baby size). An inconsistent understanding of related constructs was observed between questions related to sores/ulcers, birth weight/baby size, and diagnosis of dementia/presence of mental confusion. An incorrect association of the intended construct with that which was interpreted by the respondent was observed in the medical diagnosis question series. Conclusions In this mixed methods analysis, we identified series of questions which could be shortened through elimination of redundancy, series of questions requiring clarification due to unclear constructs, and the impact of respondent characteristics on the quality of responses. These changes can lead to a better understanding of the question constructs by the respondents, increase the acceptance of the tool, and improve the overall accuracy of the VA instrument.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274304</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36206230</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Autopsies ; Autopsy ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Birth weight ; Cognitive ability ; Confusion ; Data collection ; Datasets ; Dementia disorders ; Design ; Diagnosis ; Health surveys ; Interviews ; Medical diagnosis ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Mixed methods research ; Mortality ; Neonates ; Performance evaluation ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative research ; Quantitative analysis ; Questionnaires ; Questions ; Redundancy ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Series (mathematics) ; Surveillance ; Teams ; Tobacco ; Ulcers ; Vaccination ; Vomiting</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0274304-e0274304</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-f0c56f8112dae576661087e3ce8126d9ccdb837de8689d099fadb3c8c71f636a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-f0c56f8112dae576661087e3ce8126d9ccdb837de8689d099fadb3c8c71f636a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4917-1412</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2722687078/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2722687078?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Menezes, Ritesh G.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettrone, Kristen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vickers, Brent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gebrehiwet, Hermon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Surek-Clark, Clarissa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leitao, Jordana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amouzou, Agbessi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blau, Dianna M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradshaw, Debbie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelilah, El Marnissi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groenewald, Pamela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munkombwe, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mwango, Chomba</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Notzon, F. Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biko Odhiambo, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scanlon, Paul</creatorcontrib><title>Mixed-methods analysis of select issues reported in the 2016 World Health Organization verbal autopsy questionnaire</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Background Use of a standardized verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) instrument, can improve the consistency and reliability of the data it collects. Systematically revising a questionnaire, however, requires evidence about the performance of its questions. The purpose of this investigation was to use a mixed methods approach to evaluate the performance of questions related to 14 previously reported issues in the 2016 version of the WHO questionnaire, where there were concerns of potential confusion, redundancy, or inability of the respondent to answer the question. The results from this mixed methods analysis are discussed across common themes that may have contributed to the underperformance of questions and have been compiled to inform decisions around the revision of the current VA instrument. Methods Quantitative analysis of 19,150 VAs for neonates, children, and adults from five project teams implementing VAs predominately in Sub-Saharan Africa included frequency distributions and cross-tabulations to evaluate response patterns among related questions. The association of respondent characteristics and response patterns was evaluated using prevalence ratios. Qualitative analysis included results from cognitive interviewing, an approach that provides a detailed understanding of the meanings and processes that respondents use to answer interview questions. Cognitive interviews were conducted among 149 participants in Morocco and Zambia. Findings from the qualitative and quantitative analyses were triangulated to identify common themes. Results Four broad themes contributing to the underperformance or redundancy within the instrument were identified: question sequence, overlap within the question series, questions outside the frame of reference of the respondent, and questions needing clarification. The series of questions associated with one of the 14 identified issues (the series of questions on injuries) related to question sequence; seven (tobacco use, sores, breast swelling, abdominal problem, vomiting, vaccination, and baby size) demonstrated similar response patterns among questions within each series capturing overlapping information. Respondent characteristics, including relationship to the deceased and whether or not the respondent lived with the deceased, were associated with differing frequencies of non-substantive responses in three question series (female health related issues, tobacco use, and baby size). An inconsistent understanding of related constructs was observed between questions related to sores/ulcers, birth weight/baby size, and diagnosis of dementia/presence of mental confusion. An incorrect association of the intended construct with that which was interpreted by the respondent was observed in the medical diagnosis question series. Conclusions In this mixed methods analysis, we identified series of questions which could be shortened through elimination of redundancy, series of questions requiring clarification due to unclear constructs, and the impact of respondent characteristics on the quality of responses. These changes can lead to a better understanding of the question constructs by the respondents, increase the acceptance of the tool, and improve the overall accuracy of the VA instrument.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Autopsies</subject><subject>Autopsy</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Birth weight</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Confusion</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Dementia disorders</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Health surveys</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Mixed methods research</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Neonates</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Quantitative analysis</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Redundancy</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Series (mathematics)</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Teams</subject><subject>Tobacco</subject><subject>Ulcers</subject><subject>Vaccination</subject><subject>Vomiting</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1trFDEUxwdRbK1-A8GAIPqway4zSeZFKEXtQqXg9TFkkjO7WWYna5IpXT-92d1ROtIHyUPCye_8z4VziuI5wXPCBHm79kPodTff-h7mmIqS4fJBcUpqRmecYvbwzvukeBLjGuOKSc4fFycsGzll-LSIn9wt2NkG0srbiHRW3EUXkW9RhA5MQi7GASIKsPUhgUWuR2kFiGLC0Q8fOosuQXdpha7DUvful07O9-gGQqM7pIfkt3GHfmaJvb3XLsDT4lGruwjPxvus-Pbh_deLy9nV9cfFxfnVzHBep1mLTcVbSQi1GirBOSdYCmAGJKHc1sbYRjJhQXJZW1zXrbYNM9II0nLGNTsrXhx1t52PauxXVFRQyqXAQmZicSSs12u1DW6jw0557dTB4MNS6ZCc6UA1FWYNVNaAKEuTcxAAddWwihppNS6z1rsx2tBsIHN9CrqbiE5_erdSS3-j6qpkUlRZ4PUoEPyhX2rjooGu0z344ZA3I1WZa8_oy3_Q-6sbqaXOBbi-9Tmu2Yuqc0FJSWTFRabm91D5WNg4k4erddk-cXgzcchMgtu01EOMavHl8_-z19-n7Ks77OowVNF3w35u4hQsj6AJPsYA7d8mE6z2u_GnG2q_G2rcDfYbPj8BFA</recordid><startdate>20221007</startdate><enddate>20221007</enddate><creator>Nichols, Erin</creator><creator>Pettrone, Kristen</creator><creator>Vickers, Brent</creator><creator>Gebrehiwet, Hermon</creator><creator>Surek-Clark, Clarissa</creator><creator>Leitao, Jordana</creator><creator>Amouzou, Agbessi</creator><creator>Blau, Dianna M</creator><creator>Bradshaw, Debbie</creator><creator>Abdelilah, El Marnissi</creator><creator>Groenewald, Pamela</creator><creator>Munkombwe, Brian</creator><creator>Mwango, Chomba</creator><creator>Notzon, F. Sam</creator><creator>Biko Odhiambo, Steve</creator><creator>Scanlon, Paul</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4917-1412</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221007</creationdate><title>Mixed-methods analysis of select issues reported in the 2016 World Health Organization verbal autopsy questionnaire</title><author>Nichols, Erin ; Pettrone, Kristen ; Vickers, Brent ; Gebrehiwet, Hermon ; Surek-Clark, Clarissa ; Leitao, Jordana ; Amouzou, Agbessi ; Blau, Dianna M ; Bradshaw, Debbie ; Abdelilah, El Marnissi ; Groenewald, Pamela ; Munkombwe, Brian ; Mwango, Chomba ; Notzon, F. Sam ; Biko Odhiambo, Steve ; Scanlon, Paul</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-f0c56f8112dae576661087e3ce8126d9ccdb837de8689d099fadb3c8c71f636a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Autopsies</topic><topic>Autopsy</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Birth weight</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Confusion</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Dementia disorders</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Health surveys</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Mixed methods research</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Neonates</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Quantitative analysis</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Redundancy</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Series (mathematics)</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Teams</topic><topic>Tobacco</topic><topic>Ulcers</topic><topic>Vaccination</topic><topic>Vomiting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettrone, Kristen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vickers, Brent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gebrehiwet, Hermon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Surek-Clark, Clarissa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leitao, Jordana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amouzou, Agbessi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blau, Dianna M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradshaw, Debbie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelilah, El Marnissi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groenewald, Pamela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munkombwe, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mwango, Chomba</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Notzon, F. Sam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biko Odhiambo, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scanlon, Paul</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nichols, Erin</au><au>Pettrone, Kristen</au><au>Vickers, Brent</au><au>Gebrehiwet, Hermon</au><au>Surek-Clark, Clarissa</au><au>Leitao, Jordana</au><au>Amouzou, Agbessi</au><au>Blau, Dianna M</au><au>Bradshaw, Debbie</au><au>Abdelilah, El Marnissi</au><au>Groenewald, Pamela</au><au>Munkombwe, Brian</au><au>Mwango, Chomba</au><au>Notzon, F. Sam</au><au>Biko Odhiambo, Steve</au><au>Scanlon, Paul</au><au>Menezes, Ritesh G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mixed-methods analysis of select issues reported in the 2016 World Health Organization verbal autopsy questionnaire</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-10-07</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0274304</spage><epage>e0274304</epage><pages>e0274304-e0274304</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Background Use of a standardized verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) instrument, can improve the consistency and reliability of the data it collects. Systematically revising a questionnaire, however, requires evidence about the performance of its questions. The purpose of this investigation was to use a mixed methods approach to evaluate the performance of questions related to 14 previously reported issues in the 2016 version of the WHO questionnaire, where there were concerns of potential confusion, redundancy, or inability of the respondent to answer the question. The results from this mixed methods analysis are discussed across common themes that may have contributed to the underperformance of questions and have been compiled to inform decisions around the revision of the current VA instrument. Methods Quantitative analysis of 19,150 VAs for neonates, children, and adults from five project teams implementing VAs predominately in Sub-Saharan Africa included frequency distributions and cross-tabulations to evaluate response patterns among related questions. The association of respondent characteristics and response patterns was evaluated using prevalence ratios. Qualitative analysis included results from cognitive interviewing, an approach that provides a detailed understanding of the meanings and processes that respondents use to answer interview questions. Cognitive interviews were conducted among 149 participants in Morocco and Zambia. Findings from the qualitative and quantitative analyses were triangulated to identify common themes. Results Four broad themes contributing to the underperformance or redundancy within the instrument were identified: question sequence, overlap within the question series, questions outside the frame of reference of the respondent, and questions needing clarification. The series of questions associated with one of the 14 identified issues (the series of questions on injuries) related to question sequence; seven (tobacco use, sores, breast swelling, abdominal problem, vomiting, vaccination, and baby size) demonstrated similar response patterns among questions within each series capturing overlapping information. Respondent characteristics, including relationship to the deceased and whether or not the respondent lived with the deceased, were associated with differing frequencies of non-substantive responses in three question series (female health related issues, tobacco use, and baby size). An inconsistent understanding of related constructs was observed between questions related to sores/ulcers, birth weight/baby size, and diagnosis of dementia/presence of mental confusion. An incorrect association of the intended construct with that which was interpreted by the respondent was observed in the medical diagnosis question series. Conclusions In this mixed methods analysis, we identified series of questions which could be shortened through elimination of redundancy, series of questions requiring clarification due to unclear constructs, and the impact of respondent characteristics on the quality of responses. These changes can lead to a better understanding of the question constructs by the respondents, increase the acceptance of the tool, and improve the overall accuracy of the VA instrument.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>36206230</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0274304</doi><tpages>e0274304</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4917-1412</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0274304-e0274304 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2722687078 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central |
subjects | Analysis Autopsies Autopsy Biology and Life Sciences Birth weight Cognitive ability Confusion Data collection Datasets Dementia disorders Design Diagnosis Health surveys Interviews Medical diagnosis Medicine and Health Sciences Methods Mixed methods research Mortality Neonates Performance evaluation Qualitative analysis Qualitative research Quantitative analysis Questionnaires Questions Redundancy Research and Analysis Methods Series (mathematics) Surveillance Teams Tobacco Ulcers Vaccination Vomiting |
title | Mixed-methods analysis of select issues reported in the 2016 World Health Organization verbal autopsy questionnaire |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T16%3A07%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mixed-methods%20analysis%20of%20select%20issues%20reported%20in%20the%202016%20World%20Health%20Organization%20verbal%20autopsy%20questionnaire&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Nichols,%20Erin&rft.date=2022-10-07&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0274304&rft.epage=e0274304&rft.pages=e0274304-e0274304&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0274304&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA721418567%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-f0c56f8112dae576661087e3ce8126d9ccdb837de8689d099fadb3c8c71f636a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2722687078&rft_id=info:pmid/36206230&rft_galeid=A721418567&rfr_iscdi=true |