Collecting mortality data via mobile phone surveys: A non-inferiority randomized trial in Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the urgent need for timely mortality data in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, mobile phone surveys rarely include questions about recent deaths. Such questions might a) be too sensitive, b) take too long to ask and/or c) generate unreliable data. We assessed the feasibility of mortality data collection using mobile phone surveys in Malawi. We conducted a non-inferiority trial among a random sample of mobile phone users. Participants were allocated to an interview about their recent economic activity or recent deaths in their family. In the group that was asked mortality-related questions, half of the respondents completed an abridged questionnaire, focused on information necessary to calculate recent mortality rates, whereas the other half completed an extended questionnaire that also included questions about symptoms and healthcare. The primary trial outcome was the cooperation rate, i.e., the number of completed interviews divided by the number of mobile subscribers invited to participate. Secondary outcomes included self-reports of negative feelings and stated intentions to participate in future interviews. We called more than 7,000 unique numbers and reached 3,054 mobile subscribers. In total, 1,683 mobile users were invited to participate. The difference in cooperation rates between those asked to complete a mortality-related interview and those asked to answer questions about economic activity was 0.9 percentage points (95% CI = -2.3, 4.1), which satisfied the non-inferiority criterion. The mortality questionnaire was non-inferior to the economic questionnaire on all secondary outcomes. Collecting mortality data required 2 to 4 additional minutes per reported death, depending on the inclusion of questions about symptoms and healthcare. More than half of recent deaths elicited during mobile phone interviews had not been registered with the National Registration Bureau. Including mortality-related questions in mobile phone surveys is feasible. It might help strengthen the surveillance of mortality in countries with deficient civil registration systems. Registration: AEA RCT Registry, #0008065 (14 September 2021).
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".