Data for health: impact on improving the quality of cause-of-death information in Brazil.

Q2 Medicine
M. F. Marinho, E. França, R. Teixeira, L. Ishitani, C. C. Cunha, M. R. Santos, Ashley Frederes, J. Cortez-Escalante, D. Abreu
{"title":"Data for health: impact on improving the quality of cause-of-death information in Brazil.","authors":"M. F. Marinho, E. França, R. Teixeira, L. Ishitani, C. C. Cunha, M. R. Santos, Ashley Frederes, J. Cortez-Escalante, D. Abreu","doi":"10.1590/1980-549720190005.supl.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nKnowing the number of deaths and their causes is relevant information for public health managers. However, the cause of death is often classified with codes that are not useful for mortality analysis, called garbage codes (GC).\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nTo describe and evaluate the impact of investigation of the underlying cause of poorly classified deaths on death certificates in 2017.\n\n\nMETHODS\nBased on a standardized protocol, GC deaths from 60 municipalities were investigated, mainly in hospital records and autopsy services. Managers at the state level of the Mortality Information System also developed procedures to improve the classification of causes of death, with the consequent adherence of other municipalities (n = 4022). This made it possible to compare the results of GC research between these two groups of municipalities.\n\n\nRESULTS\nIn the country, among the 108,826 GC investigated in 2017, 48% were reclassified to specific causes. In the 60 focus municipalities, 58% of the 35,366 investigated deaths from GC were reclassified. After the intervention, the proportion of deaths classified as GC decreased by 11% in the country and 17% in the municipalities.\n\n\nDISCUSSION\nThe research in hospital records enabled almost half of the deaths from GC investigated to be reclassified. This is the first study to investigate GC in hospital records of more than 100,000 deaths. The 60 cities targeted by the intervention had better results than the other cities.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe intervention proved to be an appropriate initiative to improve the quality of information on cause of death and should be encouraged.","PeriodicalId":35426,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia","volume":"22Suppl 3 Suppl 3 1","pages":"e19005.supl.3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720190005.supl.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Knowing the number of deaths and their causes is relevant information for public health managers. However, the cause of death is often classified with codes that are not useful for mortality analysis, called garbage codes (GC). OBJECTIVE To describe and evaluate the impact of investigation of the underlying cause of poorly classified deaths on death certificates in 2017. METHODS Based on a standardized protocol, GC deaths from 60 municipalities were investigated, mainly in hospital records and autopsy services. Managers at the state level of the Mortality Information System also developed procedures to improve the classification of causes of death, with the consequent adherence of other municipalities (n = 4022). This made it possible to compare the results of GC research between these two groups of municipalities. RESULTS In the country, among the 108,826 GC investigated in 2017, 48% were reclassified to specific causes. In the 60 focus municipalities, 58% of the 35,366 investigated deaths from GC were reclassified. After the intervention, the proportion of deaths classified as GC decreased by 11% in the country and 17% in the municipalities. DISCUSSION The research in hospital records enabled almost half of the deaths from GC investigated to be reclassified. This is the first study to investigate GC in hospital records of more than 100,000 deaths. The 60 cities targeted by the intervention had better results than the other cities. CONCLUSION The intervention proved to be an appropriate initiative to improve the quality of information on cause of death and should be encouraged.
健康数据:对提高巴西死因信息质量的影响。
了解死亡人数及其原因对公共卫生管理人员来说是相关的信息。然而,死亡原因通常被分类为对死亡率分析无用的代码,称为垃圾代码(GC)。目的描述和评价2017年不良分类死亡原因调查对死亡证明的影响。方法根据标准化方案,对60个城市的GC死亡进行调查,主要是在医院记录和尸检服务中。州一级死亡率信息系统的管理人员还制定了改进死因分类的程序,其他城市也随之效仿(n = 4022)。这使得比较这两组城市的GC研究结果成为可能。结果2017年全国调查的108826例GC中,有48%被重新归类为特定原因。在60个重点城市中,调查的35 366例GC死亡中有58%被重新分类。干预措施实施后,全国归类为GC的死亡比例下降了11%,各市下降了17%。讨论:对医院记录的研究使得几乎一半的GC死亡被重新分类。这是第一次在超过10万例死亡的医院记录中调查GC。参与干预的60个城市的效果要好于其他城市。结论该干预措施是提高死亡原因信息质量的一项适当举措,应予以鼓励。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia
Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
89
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia (Brazilian Journal of Epidemiology) - every four months, journal published by the ABRASCO - aims at publishing not previously published Original Articles, including critical reviews on specific themes, which may contribute to the development of Epidemiology and related Sciences. Revista also publishes articles in the following categories: Debate aimed at discussing different views of the same theme which may be presented as an original article followed by comments from other authors, reproduction of panels and other similar formats; Notes and Information - notes on primary results of research studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信