IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0006223.html

A comparison of verbal autopsy assignment methods to obtain adult cause-specific mortality in two longitudinal studies in Rakai and Kalungu districts of South Central, Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Dorean Nabukalu
  • Tom Lutalo
  • Joseph Mugisha
  • Ronald Makanga
  • Ivan Kasamba
  • Clara Calvert
  • Palwasha Khan
  • Milly Marston
  • Jim Todd

Abstract

Verbal Autopsy (VA) data determines cause of death (CoD) in settings where certification is lacking, using structured interviews on symptoms and circumstances before death. Various methods are used to interpret this information and assign a probable cause of death. Debate exists over replacing physician reviews with automated methods. We compared physician reviews with two computer algorithms in assigning adult CoD. We used adult (≥15 years) VA data collected at two Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) sites in Uganda (Rakai and Kyamulibwa) collected between 2013 and 2021. CoD were categorized into six broad groups, and observed cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMF) were calculated. We evaluated the performance of physician reviews and two algorithms (InterVA-5 and InSilicoVA) based on four individual and population-level metrics (CSMF accuracy, percentage agreement, sensitivity, and Spearman’s correlation coefficient). Data from Rakai compared physician reviews and algorithms, while Kyamulibwa data compared the two algorithms. A total of 1564 VA records from Rakai and Kyamulibwa were analysed. In Rakai, InSilicoVA showed higher CSMF for other communicable causes, excluding HIV/TB (males 24.1%, 95% CI:20.1-28.7; females 25.2%, 95% CI: 20.8-30.3) than Physician reviews (males 14.8%, 95% CI: 11.6-18.8; females 17.5%, 95% CI: 13.8-22.1) and InterVA-5 (males 11.1%, 95% CI: 8.3-14.8; females11.7%, 8.6-15.7). Non-communicable diseases CSMF was lowest with InSilicoVA (males 30.5%, 95% CI:26.1-35.4, and females 38.46%, 33.31-43.89) compared to the InterVA-5. The CSMF accuracy and percentage agreement demonstrated comparable performance between physician reviews and computer algorithms, with substantial agreement in identifying causes of death. InSilicoVA was more sensitive for infectious, pregnancy, and external causes, while InterVA-5 better identified non-communicable and HIV/TB-related deaths. Computer algorithms can complement physician review in resource-limited settings, but current VA tools rely on structured symptom data and exclude rich narrative information. Incorporating qualitative information in future algorithms may improve symptom–cause relationships, accuracy, and cause-of-death assignment.

Suggested Citation

  • Dorean Nabukalu & Tom Lutalo & Joseph Mugisha & Ronald Makanga & Ivan Kasamba & Clara Calvert & Palwasha Khan & Milly Marston & Jim Todd, 2026. "A comparison of verbal autopsy assignment methods to obtain adult cause-specific mortality in two longitudinal studies in Rakai and Kalungu districts of South Central, Uganda," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-22, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006223
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006223
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006223&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0006223?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:pgph00:0006223. 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: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    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.