Revising the WHO verbal autopsy instrument to facilitate routine cause-of-death monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: Verbal autopsy (VA) is a systematic approach for determining causes of death (CoD) in populations without routine medical certification. It has mainly been used in research contexts and involved relatively lengthy interviews. Our objective here is to describe the process used to shorten, simplify, and standardise the VA process to make it feasible for application on a larger scale such as in routine civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems. METHODS: A literature review of existing VA instruments was undertaken. The World Health Organization (WHO) then facilitated an international consultation process to review experiences with existing VA instruments, including those from WHO, the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and their Health in Developing Countries (INDEPTH) Network, InterVA, and the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC). In an expert meeting, consideration was given to formulating a workable VA CoD list [with mapping to the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) CoD] and to the viability and utility of existing VA interview questions, with a view to undertaking systematic simplification. FINDINGS: A revised VA CoD list was compiled enabling mapping of all ICD-10 CoD onto 62 VA cause categories, chosen on the grounds of public health significance as well as potential for ascertainment from VA. A set of 221 indicators for inclusion in the revised VA instrument was developed on the basis of accumulated experience, with appropriate skip patterns for various population sub-groups. The duration of a VA interview was reduced by about 40% with this new approach. CONCLUSIONS: The revised VA instrument resulting from this consultation process is presented here as a means of making it available for widespread use and evaluation. It is envisaged that this will be used in conjunction with automated models for assigning CoD from VA data, rather than involving physicians

Challenges to the provision of diabetes care in first nations communities: results from a national survey of healthcare providers in Canada

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Aboriginal peoples globally, and First Nations peoples in Canada particularly, suffer from high rates of type 2 diabetes and related complications compared with the general population. Research into the unique barriers faced by healthcare providers working in on-reserve First Nations communities is essential for developing effective quality improvement strategies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In Phase I of this two-phased study, semi-structured interviews and focus groups were held with 24 healthcare providers in the Sioux Lookout Zone in north-western Ontario. A follow-up survey was conducted in Phase II as part of a larger project, the Canadian First Nations Diabetes Clinical Management and Epidemiologic (CIRCLE) study. The survey was completed with 244 healthcare providers in 19 First Nations communities in 7 Canadian provinces, representing three isolation levels (isolated, semi-isolated, non-isolated). Interviews, focus groups and survey questions all related to barriers to providing optimal diabetes care in First Nations communities.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>the key factors emerging from interviews and focus group discussions were at the patient, provider, and systemic level. Survey results indicated that, across three isolation levels, healthcare providers' perceived patient factors as having the largest impact on diabetes care. However, physicians and nurses were more likely to rank patient factors as having a large impact on care than community health representatives (CHRs) and physicians were significantly less likely to rank patient-provider communication as having a large impact than CHRs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Addressing patient factors was considered the highest impact strategy for improving diabetes care. While this may reflect "patient blaming," it also suggests that self-management strategies may be well-suited for this context. Program planning should focus on training programs for CHRs, who provide a unique link between patients and clinical services. Research incorporating patient perspectives is needed to complete this picture and inform quality improvement initiatives.</p

The Scientific Foundation for Personal Genomics: Recommendations from a National Institutes of Health-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Multidisciplinary Workshop

The increasing availability of personal genomic tests has led to discussions about the validity and utility of such tests and the balance of benefits and harms. A multidisciplinary workshop was convened by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the scientific foundation for using personal genomics in risk assessment and disease prevention and to develop recommendations for targeted research. The clinical validity and utility of personal genomics is a moving target with rapidly developing discoveries but little translation research to close the gap between discoveries and health impact. Workshop participants made recommendations in five domains: (1) developing and applying scientific standards for assessing personal genomic tests; (2) developing and applying a multidisciplinary research agenda, including observational studies and clinical trials to fill knowledge gaps in clinical validity and utility; (3) enhancing credible knowledge synthesis and information dissemination to clinicians and consumers; (4) linking scientific findings to evidence-based recommendations for use of personal genomics; and (5) assessing how the concept of personal utility can affect health benefits, costs, and risks by developing appropriate metrics for evaluation. To fulfill the promise of personal genomics, a rigorous multidisciplinary research agenda is needed. Genet Med 2009:11(8):559-567