Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Refining a probabilistic model for interpreting verbal autopsy data
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Volume 34, No. 1, Year 2006
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Objective: To build on the previously reported development of a Bayesian probabilistic model for interpreting verbal autopsy (VA) data, attempting to improve the model's performance in determining cause of death and to reassess it. Design: An expert group of clinicians, coming from a wide range geographically and in terms of specialization, was convened. Over a four-day period the content of the previous probabilistic model was reviewed in detail and adjusted as necessary to reflect the group consensus. The revised model was tested with the same 189 VA cases from Vietnam, assessed by two local clinicians, that were used to test the preliminary model. Results: The revised model contained a total of 104 indicators that could be derived from VA data and 34 possible causes of death. When applied to the 189 Vietnamese cases, 142 (75.1%) achieved concordance between the model's output and the previous clinical consensus. The remaining 47 cases (24.9%) were presented to a further independent clinician for reassessment. As a result, consensus between clinical reassessment and the model's output was achieved in 28 cases (14.8%); clinical reassessment and the original clinical opinion agreed in 8 cases (4.2%), and in the remaining 11 cases (5.8%) clinical reassessment, the model, and the original clinical opinion all differed. Thus overall the model was considered to have performed well in 170 cases (89.9%). Conclusions: This approach to interpreting VA data continues to show promise. The next steps will be to evaluate it against other sources of VA data. The expert group approach to determining the required probability base seems to have been a productive one in improving the performance of the model. © 2006, Sage Publications. All rights reserved.
Authors & Co-Authors
Byass, Peter
Sweden, Umea
Umeå Universitet
Fottrell, Edward F.
Sweden, Umea
Umeå Universitet
Huong, Dao Lan
Viet Nam, Hanoi
Ministry of Health Vitenam
Berhane, Yemane
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa
Addis Ababa University
Corrah, Tumani P.
Gambia, Banjul
Medical Research Council Laboratories Gambia
Kahn, Kathleen
South Africa, Johannesburg
University of the Witwatersrand
Muhe, Lulu Mussa
Switzerland, Geneva
Organisation Mondiale de la Santé
Duc Van, Do
Viet Nam, Hanoi
Viet Duc Hospital
Statistics
Citations: 113
Authors: 8
Affiliations: 7
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1080/14034940510032202
ISSN:
14034948