Improving retrospective data on recent household deaths: a multi-arm randomized trial in Guinea-Bissau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In countries with limited civil registration and vital statistics systems, assessing the impact of health crises requires precise retrospective mortality data. We tested whether calendar methods improve survey or census data on dates of recent household deaths registered in a Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS). METHODS: Between April and June 2023, we randomized 578 households with HDSS-registered deaths in Guinea-Bissau to interviews by using (i) a standard questionnaire with close-ended questions about dates of deaths, or similar questionnaires supplemented with (ii) a physical calendar of local events printed on paper or (iii) a digital calendar implemented on tablets. We evaluated the accuracy of reported dates through record linkages to HDSS data. RESULTS: No deaths were reported in 11.8% of the 508 participating households. In other households (n = 448), informants reported 574 deaths since January 2020. Relative to the standard questionnaire, neither the physical calendar nor the digital calendar improved the proportion of deaths reported in the same month and year as recorded by using surveillance data. The physical and digital calendars reduced the share of missing data on dates of deaths (6.1% and 3.2%, respectively, versus 13.1% with the standard questionnaire). Reported dates of deaths obtained by using the digital calendar were more weakly correlated with surveillance data than those collected in other arms. Using the digital calendar also added 1.15 minutes to the data collection. CONCLUSION: Digital calendars do not improve the reporting of dates of deaths in surveys or censuses. Further trials of the use of a physical calendar in retrospective interviews about recent household deaths are warranted.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".