As can be seen in the above table , most of the causes for which some expert opinion is available are infant deaths, respiratory and diarrhoeal diseases. For 21 out of these 24 causes the SCD questions appear to be in accordance with expert opinion and validity information available in the literature. The three causes for which there is major discrepancy are (a) cord infection, (b) pre maturity, and (c) cancer. Most experts agree and validation studies show that verbal autopsy is good at detecting neonatal tetanus. In SCD-Rural, neonatal tetanus is included under cord infection and thereby misses an opportunity for accurate estimation of deaths due to a cause which is very important from public health point of view. Experts opine that it is usually difficult to distinguish between prematurity and low birth weight (Garene and Fontaine, 1989; Gray, 1989). Hence they ought to be lumped together for accuracy of VA-based statistics. The SCD-Rural list does not include low birth weight in its list. It can be added to prematurity without any disturbance to the structure of the rest of the questionnaire. The SCD-Rural list homogenizes all cancers into one cause. Some expert opinion is usually available by site of cancer. Moreover some cancers would have symptoms which may be confused with the filter questions for other modules. For example, stomach cancer cases may be investigated as deaths due to digestive diseases. In that case, the field agent may not get to consider stomach cancer at all since there is no mention of it in the digestive causes module. So is the case for lung cancer.

Nonavailability of expert opinion or information pertaining to validity in the SCD-Rural nonmedical list does not imply that they are primaital facie not valid. The SCD-Rural design was based on expert opinion obtained at the time of drawing up blue print of the scheme and revision of manuals. The SCD-Rural design process included a phase of field testing of provisional questionnaires and finalisation by expert consultation. Considering the large extent to which questions for specific causes are in accord with expert opinion and information from VA validity studies, the SCD-Rural questionnaire appears to be prima facie valid.

Top 

The prima facie validity of SCD-Rural questionnaire is reassuring in the sense that the scheme design is largely in accord with current knowledge about verbal autopsy. But it does not assure us that the cause of death statistics are accurate for all causes. In case of causes for which VA is known to be highly sensitive and specific (say more than 75% for each) the SCD statistics can be mapped to medical causes directly. For other causes, more detailed algorithms for mapping of SCD statistics onto the desired set of medical causes will have to take into account available knowledge about the sensitivity and specificity of VA in general and specific peculiarities of SCD as also implementation.

From January 1999, the survey of cause of death was integrated with the SRS (RGI, 1999). It is understood that the SCD-Rural guidelines have been extended to the SRS-COD component. Although formal communication regarding this is yet to be made available, we were able to obtain a copy of the RGI rules and regulations on "Collection of data on causes of death" (Director of Census Operations, Andhra Pradesh, 1999). The elimination of the symptom record (SCD-Rural Form-7) has been a major departure from the SCD-Rural design. The SCD-Rural symptom record was similar in content to the WHO's cause of death report format, which requires information about the underlying causes of death. The SRS-COD component asks field agents to record the code to which the cause of death is assigned. No further information about symptoms and circumstances of death need be reported. This later information is required for the systematic screening and coding of cause of death reports. The phasing out of the structured questionnaire constitutes another significant departure from the SCD - Rural. Instead the instructions contain a list of causes, related symptoms for some diseases, and the corresponding ICD10 code. For some causes, no description of expected symptoms has been furnished. However, it is too early to sit in judgment on the new system. It will nevertheless be helpful if specific research studies are taken up to evaluate the performance of the new cause of death reporting system in rural areas.

The SRS-COD component is designed to generate verbal autopsy-based information on the causes of death for urban and rural areas, since SRS operates both in rural and urban areas. This will result in two sources of cause of death data from urban areas, namely the (a) SRS-COD component, and (b) the Medical Certification of Cause of Death (MCCD) reports. It is claimed that this will allow for comprehensive statistics on cause of death for all areas of India. While the availability of verbal autopsy-based cause of death data for urban areas will allow for some plausibility checks and comparisons with the MCCD based data, the latter source is certainly more preferable, as it is based on medical certification. Urban areas face the hazard of poor co-operation offered by hospitals and medical attendants. This is mainly due to the fact that there is no effort, whatsoever by municipal authorities in demanding compliance with provisions of the Registration of BD Act. about reporting of cause of death.

Top 

Age distribution of deaths attributed to selected causes by SCD-Rural and MCCD.

  Top  

Previous                Next