A Qualitative Inquiry into the Application of Verbal Autopsy for a Mortality Surveillance System in a Rural Community of Southern India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this investigation was to identify operational and ethical issues encountered in the application of verbal autopsy (VA) in a rural community in south India. A qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews was conducted with 183 bereaved caregivers in rural Andhra Pradesh, India. Simple descriptive analysis was undertaken. Only 16% of adult deaths and 27% of child deaths occurred in healthcare settings. Healthcare utilization for the terminal illness was reported in two thirds of medical (non-injury) causes of death. Supporting medical evidence was available in <10% of cases to supplement the interpretation of verbal autopsies. About 14% of bereaved caregivers refused to give written consent but provided oral consent. Additional ethical concerns included inability to ensure privacy in 15% of interviews and unsolicited information from unauthorized neighbours in 5% of cases. Such methodological, logistical and ethical issues operate to impact on the quality of VAs. Consideration of these issues would strengthen ongoing efforts in the harmonization of VA procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".