Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Sep;9(9):e1242-e1251.
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00263-1. Epub 2021 Jul 29.

Causes and circumstances of maternal death: a secondary analysis of the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trials cohort

Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Causes and circumstances of maternal death: a secondary analysis of the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trials cohort

Annet M Aukes et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Incomplete vital registration systems mean that causes of death during pregnancy and childbirth are poorly understood in low-income and middle-income countries. To inform global efforts to reduce maternal mortality, we compared physician review and computerised analysis of verbal autopsies (interpreting verbal autopsies [InterVA] software), to understand their agreement on maternal cause of death and circumstances of mortality categories (COMCATs) in the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) cluster randomised trials.

Methods: The CLIP trials took place in India, Pakistan, and Mozambique, enrolling pregnant women aged 12-49 years between Nov 1, 2014, and Feb 28, 2017. 69 330 pregnant women were enrolled in 44 clusters (36 008 in the 22 intervention clusters and 33 322 in the 22 control clusters). In this secondary analysis of maternal deaths in CLIP, we included women who died in any of the 22 intervention clusters or 22 control clusters. Trained staff administered the WHO 2012 verbal autopsy after maternal deaths. Two physicians (and a third for consensus, if needed) reviewed trial surveillance data and verbal autopsies, and, in intervention clusters, community health worker-led visit data. They determined cause of death according to the WHO International Classification of Diseases-Maternal Mortality (ICD-MM). Verbal autopsies were also analysed by InterVA computer models (versions 4 and 5) to generate cause of death. COMCAT analysis was provided by InterVA-5 and, in India, by physician review of Maternal Newborn Health Registry data. Causes of death and COMCATs assigned by physician review, Inter-VA-4, and InterVA-5 were compared, with agreement assessed with Cohen's κ coefficient.

Findings: Of 61 988 pregnancies with successful follow-up in the CLIP trials, 143 maternal deaths were reported (16 deaths in India, 105 in Pakistan, and 22 in Mozambique). The maternal death rate was 231 (95% CI 193-268) per 100 000 identified pregnancies. Most deaths were attributed to direct maternal causes (rather than indirect or undetermined causes as per ICD-MM classification), with fair to good agreement between physician review and InterVA-4 (κ=0·56 [95% CI 0·43-0·66]) or InterVA-5 (κ=0·44 [0·30-0·57]), and InterVA-4 and InterVA-5 (κ=0·72 [0·60-0·84]). The top three causes of death were the same by physician review, InterVA-4, and InterVA-5 (ICD-MM categories obstetric haemorrhage, non-obstetric complications, and hypertensive disorders); however, attribution of individual patient deaths to obstetric haemorrhage varied more between methods (physician review, 38 [27%] deaths; InterVA-4, 69 [48%] deaths; and InterVA-5, 82 [57%] deaths), than did attribution to non-obstetric causes (physician review, 39 [27%] deaths; InterVA-4, 37 [26%] deaths; and InterVA-5, 28 [20%] deaths) or hypertensive disorders (physician review, 23 [16%] deaths; InterVA-4, 25 [17%] deaths; and InterVA-5, 24 [17%] deaths). Agreement for all nine ICD-MM categories was fair for physician review versus InterVA-4 (κ=0·48 [0·38-0·58]), poor for physician review versus InterVA-5 (κ=0·36 [0·27-0·46]), and good for InterVA-4 versus InterVA-5 (κ=0·69 [0·59-0·79]). The most commonly assigned COMCATs by InterVA-5 were emergencies (68 [48%] of 143 deaths) and health systems (62 [43%] deaths), and by physician review (India only) were health systems (seven [44%] of 16 deaths) and inevitability (five [31%] deaths); agreement between InterVA-5 and physician review (India data only) was poor (κ=0·04 [0·00-0·15]).

Interpretation: Our findings indicate that InterVA-5 is less accurate than InterVA-4 at ascertaining causes and circumstances of maternal death, when compared with physician review. Our results suggest a need to improve the next iteration of InterVA, and for researchers and clinicians to preferentially use InterVA-4 when recording maternal deaths.

Funding: University of British Columbia (grantee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure
Figure
Maternal causes of death according to physician review, InterVA-4, and InterVA-5 (N=143) Number of women are presented for each cause. InterVA=interpreting verbal autopsy.

Comment in

References

    1. UN Statistics Division The Sustainable Development Goals report 2018. 2018. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/overview/
    1. UN The Millennium Development Goals report 2015. 2015. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%...
    1. Lo S, Horton R. Everyone counts—so count everyone. Lancet. 2015;386:1313–1314. - PubMed
    1. Knight M, Bunch K, Tuffnell D, on behalf of MBRRACE-UK, editors. Saving lives, improving mothers' care: lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2015–17. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; Oxford: 2019.
    1. Byass P, Fottrell E, Dao LH. Refining a probabilistic model for interpreting verbal autopsy data. Scand J Public Health. 2006;34:26–31. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms