IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0168743.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Misclassification between Neonatal Deaths and Stillbirths: Empirical Evidence from Malawi

Author

Listed:
  • Li Liu
  • Henry D Kalter
  • Yue Chu
  • Narjis Kazmi
  • Alain K Koffi
  • Agbessi Amouzou
  • Olga Joos
  • Melinda Munos
  • Robert E Black

Abstract

Improving the counting of stillbirths and neonatal deaths is important to tracking Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 and improving vital statistics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the validity of self-reported stillbirths and neonatal deaths in surveys is often threatened by misclassification errors between the two birth outcomes. We assessed the extent and correlates of stillbirths being misclassified as neonatal deaths by comparing two recent and linked population surveys conducted in Malawi, one being a full birth history (FBH) survey, and the other a follow-up verbal/social autopsy (VASA) survey. We found that one-fifth of 365 neonatal deaths identified in the FBH survey were classified as stillbirths in the VASA survey. Neonatal deaths with signs of movements in the last few days before delivery reported were less likely to be misclassified stillbirths (OR = 0.08, p

Suggested Citation

  • Li Liu & Henry D Kalter & Yue Chu & Narjis Kazmi & Alain K Koffi & Agbessi Amouzou & Olga Joos & Melinda Munos & Robert E Black, 2016. "Understanding Misclassification between Neonatal Deaths and Stillbirths: Empirical Evidence from Malawi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168743
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168743
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168743
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168743&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0168743?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168743. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.