IHS
Mission & Goals: |
Groom
Skills,
Gather Evidence and
Generate Knowledge for people's health.
To Improve the
Efficacy,
Quality & Equity
of Health Systems. |
|
|
Cause of Death |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premature mortality is a
major contributor to disease burden. According to the GBD estimates (Murray and Lopez,
1996) the YLL component of DALYs was about 50% in established market economies, where the
epidemiological transition had already taken place. In former socialist economies, China,
Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), 57%-58% of disease burden was due to premature
mortality. In India, Middle Eastern Crescent (MEC), the rest of Asia and islands (OAI),
YLLs contributed 65-69% of total DALYs lost in 1990. In sub - Saharan Africa, more than
75% of DALYs was contributed by YLLs. In case of India 84% of the disease burden among
children was estimated to be on account of premature mortality. A little more than half of
DALYs, lost among older children and young adults, was due to premature mortality. For
older people, the contribution of premature mortality to disease burden was 66% or higher.
Hence the causes of these deaths is important for health policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Premature
mortality (YLLs) and disability (YLDs) components of disease burden in India as per GBD
Version-5. |
Age group |
YLLs |
YLDs |
DALYs |
% YLLs |
0-4 |
53,378 |
10,086 |
63,464 |
84.11% |
5-14 |
9,591 |
8,921 |
18,512 |
51.81% |
15-44 |
16,767 |
15,506 |
32,273 |
51.95% |
45-59 |
9,923 |
5,004 |
14,927 |
66.48% |
60 |
6,423 |
3,108 |
9,531 |
67.39% |
All ages |
96,082 |
42,625 |
138,707 |
69.27% |
Source: Murray
and Lopez, 1996 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the major share of
disease burden would be from premature mortality, accurate estimate of causes of death
would constrain the accuracy of burden of disease estimates. Here we describe, for rural
and urban areas of AP, respectively, the existing statistical base for cause of death
reporting. We present results from a study undertaken in Andhra Pradesh to improve the
accuracy of cause of death data from the rural areas. Our study on causes of death in
urban areas of AP is currently underway. Mean while, we have used medically certified
cause of death statistics from the neighbouring state of Maharashtra, where coverage of
the medical certification of cause of death is better. |
|
|
|
|
|
A brief overview of the cause of death reporting systems in India: |
|
|
At the national level, the
Registrar General of India (RGI) is responsible for collection, collation and publication
of cause of death statistics. At the state level, the Vital Statistics Division of the
Directorate of Health deals with cause of death statistics. Cause of death reports
originate from lay reporters in rural areas and medical attendants in urban areas. The
reports reach the State Vital Statistics office through the primary health centre, in case
of rural areas, and the municipal health office for urban areas. Tabulation is usually
done at the state level but the statistics are published by the RGI. Until December 1998,
cause of death data for the rural areas used to be collected under the Survey of Cause of
Death Rural (SCD-Rural) scheme, from a sample of villages by a lay diagnosis and reporting
system. A paramedical person from the PHC is designated as the field agent who undertakes
the primary survey. (S)he identifies key informants and maintains liaison with them. A
household register is drawn up and updated on a half yearly basis. For each death
occurring in the village, the field agent identifies one or more persons having knowledge
of the circumstances of death, interviews them and records the symptoms and circumstances
of death in Form-7. A structured questionnaire is used to investigate cause of death using
the symptoms and circumstances of death. The structured questionnaire is supplemented by a
check list. The field agent arrives at a probable cause of death by applying the
structured questionnaire to symptoms and circumstances recorded in Form-7. The check list
entry against the probable cause of death is tallied with the symptoms and circumstances
of death. The cause of death thus arrived is reported in Form-3. The PHC statistician is
designated as the recorder of events reported by the field agent. Half-yearly verification
of the household list is done by the recorder. Medical officer of the PHC is expected to
check and certify the correctness of cause of death assignment by the field agent.
Assignment of cause of death is done by the field agent based on a structured interview
with a member of concerned household. The structured questionnaire currently in use was
adopted after taking into account five years of field experience with a provisional
questionnaire. The non medical list (NML) of causes of death was last revised in 1983 to
correspond to ICD ninth revision (RGI, 1991). SCD-Rural used verbal autopsy (VA) to arrive
at cause of deaths using paramedical personnel. |
|
|
|
|
|
From January 1999 a cause
of death component has been added to the SRS (RGI, 1999). We call this the SRS-COD
component. Two more columns have been added to SRS Form-5 (Columns 16-17) and Form-10
(columns 12-13). The SRS part-time enumerator (PTE) records cause of death in column 16
and the code in column 17 of the revised Form-5. The SRS supervisor records similar
information in columns 12 and 13 of the revised Form-10. A major departure from the
SCD-Rural design is doing away with the symptom record (SCD-Rural Form-7). Another
departure from the SCD-Rural is the elimination of the structured questionnaire. Instead
the instructions contain a list of causes, related symptoms for some, and the
corresponding ICD-10 code. |
|
|
Top |
|
|
In case of the urban areas,
a medical certification of cause of death (MCCD) scheme is operational. This scheme has
been acceded legal sanction under the Registration of Births and Deaths (RBD) Act. All
medically attended deaths are expected to be registered (Form-2) along with cause of death
reports in a format (Form-4) which is similar to what is prescribed by the WHO for
International Classification of Cause of Death (ICD). The responsibility for reporting
cause of death rests with the doctor / health care provider who last attended on the
deceased. Reports are sent to the municipal health authorities, who forward them to the
concerned state vital statistics office. The medical attendant is required to follow
guidelines contained in the Physician's manual on medical certification of cause of death
(RGI, 1992). This manual prescribed the WHO form for reporting cause of death according to
the current version of ICD. Coding and tabulation is done according to the National List
which is an adaptation of the ICD basic tabulation list. Since the MCCD essentially
implements ICD coding and guidelines, the design of the system is considered satisfactory. |
|
|
|
|
|
Characteristics of an usable cause of death reporting system: |
|
|
Ruzicka and Lopez (1990)
have listed five criteria used by the World Health Organisation to assess fitness of
country-level cause of death data for inclusion in its compilations. Firstly, the
proportion of all deaths attributed to residual categories such as "Symptoms, signs
and ill defined conditions" is within limits, say less than 10%. Secondly, the
proportionate distribution of deaths by cause is consistent with the estimated mortality
level for that country. Thirdly, no cause of death with a clear age-sex dependency has
been incorrectly assigned. Fourthly, the age-sex distribution for major causes is
consistent with what one may expect for each cause. Finally, data generated by the system
are consistent with previous years. Note that these are basically plausibility checks. A
data set failing these criteria is more likely to be biased. A data set satisfying these
criteria may still not be usable, on account of poor statistical power of the generated
estimates, and biases that are not readily noticeable. Building upon the criteria
suggested by Ruzicka and Lopez (1990), we have identified the following nine criteria to
assess the usability of any cause of death statistics: |
|
|
Top |
|
|
1. |
Content validity of lay reporting systems, if
any. |
2. |
Adequate coverage and compliance. |
3. |
Validity of statistics at sub-national levels
of disaggregation. |
4. |
Minimal usage of residual categories, such as
unclassifiable, or ill-defined conditions. |
5. |
Consistency of cause-specific mortality
proportion with general mortality level. |
6. |
Absence of incorrect assignment of causes with
clear age-sex dependency. |
7. |
Incidence of improbable age-sex distribution
by cause is nil. |
8. |
Consistency of cause specific mortality
proportion over consecutive years. |
9. |
Timely compilation and publication of the
statistics. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cause of death reporting in India. A
performance analysis: |
|
|
We examine, below, the
usability of the cause of death statistics in India from the rural and urban areas
respectively. We take up each usability criteria, discuss its implications briefly and
then examine how India's cause of death statistics fares, using national statistics and
state level statistics from Andhra Pradesh. Where required, we supplement the published
statistics with information about Andhra Pradesh, available to us from our study on cause
of death in Andhra Pradesh. We have called this the Andhra Pradesh Rural Cause of Death
(APRCD) study, 1998. |
|
|
|
|
|
Content validity of the verbal autopsy
algorithm for lay reporting of cause of death in India: |
|
|
Design characteristics of
the reporting system have a bearing on the usability of cause of death statistics. For
example, changes in the guidelines of the international classification of causes of death
(ICD) have been seen to cause reduction or increase in assignment of deaths to certain
causes, depending on the specific changes brought by the particular version of the ICD.
Analogously, guidelines for verbal autopsy can have some effect on the cause of death
structure produced by the concerned cause of death reporting system. |
|
|
Top |
|
|
Next
|
|
|
|
|