Improving performance of the Tariff Method for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101190723 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1741-7015 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17417015 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Med Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: [London] : BioMed Central, 2003-

Cause of Death*; Autopsy/*methods; Female ; Humans ; Male

Background: Reliable data on the distribution of causes of death (COD) in a population are fundamental to good public health practice. In the absence of comprehensive medical certification of deaths, the only feasible way to collect essential mortality data is verbal autopsy (VA). The Tariff Method was developed by the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) to ascertain COD from VA information. Given its potential for improving information about COD, there is interest in refining the method. We describe the further development of the Tariff Method.
Methods: This study uses data from the PHMRC and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia studies. Gold standard clinical diagnostic criteria for hospital deaths were specified for a target cause list. VAs were collected from families using the PHMRC verbal autopsy instrument including health care experience (HCE). The original Tariff Method (Tariff 1.0) was trained using the validated PHMRC database for which VAs had been collected for deaths with hospital records fulfilling the gold standard criteria (validated VAs). In this study, the performance of Tariff 1.0 was tested using VAs from household surveys (community VAs) collected for the PHMRC and NHMRC studies. We then corrected the model to account for the previous observed biases of the model, and Tariff 2.0 was developed. The performance of Tariff 2.0 was measured at individual and population levels using the validated PHMRC database.
Results: For median chance-corrected concordance (CCC) and mean cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) accuracy, and for each of three modules with and without HCE, Tariff 2.0 performs significantly better than the Tariff 1.0, especially in children and neonates. Improvement in CSMF accuracy with HCE was 2.5%, 7.4%, and 14.9% for adults, children, and neonates, respectively, and for median CCC with HCE it was 6.0%, 13.5%, and 21.2%, respectively. Similar levels of improvement are seen in analyses without HCE.
Conclusions: Tariff 2.0 addresses the main shortcomings of the application of the Tariff Method to analyze data from VAs in community settings. It provides an estimation of COD from VAs with better performance at the individual and population level than the previous version of this method, and it is publicly available for use.

Popul Health Metr. 2011 Aug 04;9:27. (PMID: 21816095)
Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Mar;83(3):171-7. (PMID: 15798840)
Popul Health Metr. 2011 Aug 04;9:32. (PMID: 21816104)
Popul Health Metr. 2015 Oct 12;13:28. (PMID: 26464564)
BMC Med. 2014;12:23. (PMID: 24495341)
Popul Health Metr. 2011 Aug 04;9:29. (PMID: 21816105)
Popul Health Metr. 2011 Aug 04;9:38. (PMID: 21816103)
Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2095-128. (PMID: 23245604)
Popul Health Metr. 2011 Aug 04;9:31. (PMID: 21816107)
Popul Health Metr. 2011 Aug 04;9:28. (PMID: 21816106)
Glob Health Action. 2012;5:1-8. (PMID: 22944365)
Lancet. 2007 Nov 10;370(9599):1653-63. (PMID: 18029006)
BMC Med. 2014;12:5. (PMID: 24405531)
Popul Health Metr. 2014 May 14;12:14. (PMID: 24982595)
Int J Epidemiol. 2001 Jun;30(3):515-20. (PMID: 11416074)

Date Created: 20151209 Date Completed: 20160504 Latest Revision: 20181202

20240104

PMC4672473

10.1186/s12916-015-0527-9

26644140