Understanding Misclassification between Neonatal Deaths and Stillbirths: Empirical Evidence from Malawi

Li Liu, Henry D Kalter, Yue Chu, Narjis Kazmi, Alain K Koffi, Agbessi Amouzou, Olga Joos, Melinda Munos and Robert E Black

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 12, 1-11

Abstract: Improving the counting of stillbirths and neonatal deaths is important to tracking Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 and improving vital statistics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the validity of self-reported stillbirths and neonatal deaths in surveys is often threatened by misclassification errors between the two birth outcomes. We assessed the extent and correlates of stillbirths being misclassified as neonatal deaths by comparing two recent and linked population surveys conducted in Malawi, one being a full birth history (FBH) survey, and the other a follow-up verbal/social autopsy (VASA) survey. We found that one-fifth of 365 neonatal deaths identified in the FBH survey were classified as stillbirths in the VASA survey. Neonatal deaths with signs of movements in the last few days before delivery reported were less likely to be misclassified stillbirths (OR = 0.08, p

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168743 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 68743&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0168743

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168743

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().