Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 4;16(3):e0239049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239049

Evaluation of neonatal mortality data completeness and accuracy in Ghana

Dora Dadzie 1,#, Richard Okyere Boadu 2,#, Cyril Mark Engmann 3,4,5, Nana Amma Yeboaa Twum-Danso 6,7,*,#
Editor: Ricardo Q Gurgel8
PMCID: PMC7932152  PMID: 33661920

Abstract

Background

Cause-specific mortality data are required to set interventions to reduce neonatal mortality. However, in many developing countries, these data are either lacking or of low quality. We assessed the completeness and accuracy of cause of death (COD) data for neonates in Ghana to assess their usability for monitoring the effectiveness of health system interventions aimed at improving neonatal survival.

Methods

A lot quality assurance sampling survey was conducted in 20 hospitals in the public sector across four regions of Ghana. Institutional neonatal deaths (IND) occurring from 2014 through 2017 were divided into lots, defined as neonatal deaths occurring in a selected facility in a calendar year. A total of 52 eligible lots were selected: 10 from Ashanti region, and 14 each from Brong Ahafo, Eastern and Volta region. Nine lots were from 2014, 11 from 2015 and 16 each were from 2016 and 2017. The cause of death (COD) of 20 IND per lot were abstracted from admission and discharge (A&D) registers and validated against the COD recorded in death certificates, clinician’s notes or neonatal death audit reports for consistency. With the error threshold set at 5%, ≥ 17 correctly matched diagnoses in a sample of 20 deaths would make the lot accurate for COD diagnosis. Completeness of COD data was measured by calculating the proportion of IND that had death certificates completed.

Results

Nineteen out of 52 eligible (36.5%) lots had accurate COD diagnoses recorded in their A&D registers. The regional distribution of lots with accurate COD data is as follows: Ashanti (4, 21.2%), Brong Ahafo (7, 36.8%), Eastern (4, 21.1%) and Volta (4, 21.1%). Majority (9, 47.4%) of lots with accurate data were from 2016, followed by 2015 and 2017 with four (21.1%) lots. Two (10.5%) lots had accurate COD data in 2014. Only 22% (239/1040) of sampled IND had completed death certificates.

Conclusion

Death certificates were not reliably completed for IND in a sample of health facilities in Ghana from 2014 through 2017. The accuracy of cause-specific mortality data recorded in A&D registers was also below the desired target. Thus, recorded IND data in public sector health facilities in Ghana are not valid enough for decision-making or planning. Periodic data quality assessments can determine the magnitude of the data quality concerns and guide site-specific improvements in mortality data management.

Introduction

Data on cause-specific neonatal morbidity and mortality are needed to guide policies and interventions aimed at improving the lives of neonates at both global and local levels [13]. They are also needed to monitor the effectiveness of interventions aimed at neonatal mortality reduction [4, 5]. Knowledge of the contributors to the neonatal death burden is particularly relevant for planning interventions to meet the targets set in the third sustainable development goal (SDG 3) [6, 7]. Globally, about 2.6 million neonates die annually, representing 46% of all under-five child deaths [8, 9]. Majority of these deaths occur in developing countries [9]. Although globally, under-five mortality rate has declined remarkably since the 1990s, neonatal mortality rate has declined at a much slower rate [10, 11]. If current trends were to remain the same, the SDG 3 target of reducing neonatal mortality rate to 12 per 1,000 live births by 2030, and the subsequent reduction in under-five mortality, will not be achieved [6]. This underpins the demand for the scale up of interventions accompanied by effective implementation to accelerate the reduction. For interventions to be effective and optimal however, they need to be evidence-based and targeted to local needs; to a great extent, this is dependent on the availability of quality data needed for planning, monitoring, evaluation and redesign as needed. In developing countries which bear the brunt of neonatal deaths, there are inadequate vital registration systems [1214] with poor quality of cause of death (COD) data [1517]. Mortality estimates in these countries are therefore traditionally derived from modelled data from other countries with better quality data [1, 15, 18]. Consequently, the estimated rates might not truly reflect the neonatal mortality burden.

Ghana, like other developing countries has experienced a much smaller reduction in neonatal mortality, reducing by 42% from 43 per 1,000 live births in 1988 to 25 per 1,000 live births in 2017, compared to under-five mortality which reduced by 67% from 155 per 1,000 live births in 1988 to 52 per 1,000 live births in 2017 [19]. In fact, between 2007 and 2018, Ghana’s neonatal mortality rate reduced by only 14% from 29 to 25 deaths per 1,000 live births [19]. The key sources of mortality data in Ghana are vital registration systems, population-level surveys, and facility-based medical records [20]. However, less than a third of all deaths in Ghana are reported to the vital registration system, with even lower proportions reported for infant deaths [21]. Also, nationwide demographic and health surveys are conducted only periodically, making facility-based medical records the more regularly available source of mortality data in the country. Facility-based sources of neonatal COD data include admission and discharge (A&D) registers, clinicians’ notes, neonatal death audit reports, and neonatal death certificates. On initial presentation to a health facility, neonates requiring admission are assigned folders in which clinicians’ notes are documented. The initial diagnoses on presentation are recorded in the A&D registers, which are supposed to be updated with the final diagnoses upon discharge or death. Medical COD certificates are expected to be issued for all deaths, as stipulated in the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1965 (ACT 301) of Ghana [22]. Monthly summary data of COD abstracted from the A&D registers and death certificates are fed into the national health information database. The medical COD certificates are also presented to the Births and Death Registry for registration. Concerns about the quality of data are valid due to the passive nature of data collection procedures, as routine health data have been found in many instances to be of low accuracy [2326], low reliability [25], incomplete [25, 27], and delayed [28]. To the best of our knowledge, there is no available information on the quality of mortality-specific data of neonates recorded in medical records in Ghana. A few studies have assessed the errors made during completion of medical certificates [29, 30], but none has assessed their accessibility as a source of neonatal mortality data. Moreover, whether the COD information recorded in these sources accurately represent the true burden is not known. The goal of this study was to validate medical records as a credible source of neonatal mortality information in Ghana. Our primary objective was to assess the accuracy of COD data for neonates recorded in A&D registers from 2014 through 2017 while our secondary objective was to assess the proportion of neonatal deaths for which death certificates were issued during this period.

Methods

Context

The Ghana Making Every Baby Count Initiative (MEBCI) was a five-year project which sought to improve and standardize neonatal care in support of the Ghana government’s goal to accelerate the reduction of neonatal mortality from 32 per 1,000 livebirths in 2011 to 21 per 1,000 livebirths in 2018. MEBCI approached this aim with specific interventions at national level, the Greater Accra Regional Hospital, the largest regional hospital in the country, as well as the targeted administrative regions of Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, Eastern and Volta. The project was a partnership across the Ghana Health Service (GHS), Kybele Inc. and PATH, and was funded by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) from September 2013 to August 2018. MEBCI’s goal was that, by 2018, 90% of neonates delivered in health care facilities in targeted regions would receive essential neonatal care and appropriate interventions to address asphyxia, infection, and prematurity per government guidelines. One of the components of the evaluation of the MEBCI project included a temporal assessment of the institutional neonatal death (IND) rates and case fatality rates. To this end, data on causes of neonatal death were abstracted from A&D registers from 155 health facilities that benefited directly from MEBCI. During preliminary analysis of the COD data, concerns about some listed neonatal COD diagnoses such as HIV infection and Hepatitis B infection arose. This study was undertaken due to concerns about the quality of the data following this preliminary analysis.

Sample size and sampling

A Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) survey was conducted in 20 government and quasi-government health facilities in Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, Eastern and Volta regions. The LQAS, a type of sampling and analytic method, is underpinned by the assumption that a random sample as small as 19 would provide a statistically reasonable inference comparable to that from a large sample size, about whether a pre-determined target for an indicator has been achieved or not achieved [31, 32]. The LQAS method comprises three steps. Firstly, sub-populations, termed ‘lots’ within the study population are defined and a random small sample is taken from each lot. The lots are then tested separately using the decision rule to determine whether they have achieved the target for the indicator being evaluated. If the number of ‘errors’ in the sample does not exceed the threshold for permissible ‘errors’, then the decision is made that the target has been achieved [31, 32]. Lastly, the lots are weighted and aggregated to provide regional-level estimates for the indicator. The LQAS methodology, though traditionally used in industry for quality control, has been adopted and used extensively in data quality assessment [32], epidemiologic surveillance [33], and health programme monitoring [34, 35].

For the period under review, there were a total of 5,814 INDs recorded in the full census of 155 health facilities. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to sample IND. Health facilities in each of the four administrative regions were selected based on their IND burden. The total number of neonatal deaths occurring in each facility from 2014 through 2017 was determined. The facilities were then ranked and for each administrative region, the top 20% high burden facilities or high-burden facilities cumulatively contributing at least 80% of deaths (whichever criterion was met first) were selected for the survey. At the facility level, IND were divided into lots. A lot was defined as containing all neonatal deaths within a calendar year (i.e. 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) in the facility. In each lot, 20 IND were sampled from the A&D registers using a systematic random sampling approach. A sample size of 20 was expected to provide an acceptable margin of error and the same statistical precision, as would a sample size greater than 20. The folder numbers of all IND cases in a lot were recorded and assigned numbers (from one to ‘n’, where n is the number for the last case in the calendar year). The total number ‘n’ was divided by 20 to obtain the sample interval, ‘k’. A random number generator app was used to randomly select the first IND case, and subsequent ‘kth’ IND cases were selected until 20 IND cases per lot were obtained. Lots which had less than the minimum sample of 20 neonatal deaths were excluded from the survey.

Data collection

Data abstraction was done by a public health physician with clinical experience in the Ghanaian health system and thus was knowledgeable about the processes and documents involved in neonatal health care. For each sampled IND case, the final diagnosis recorded in the A&D register was abstracted. If no final diagnosis was recorded in the A&D register, the provisional diagnosis was abstracted instead. The medical COD certificate issued for that IND was traced and the principal COD as transcribed in the death certificate was also abstracted. If no medical COD certificate was issued, the final diagnosis or COD recorded in the clinician’s notes or neonatal death audit record was abstracted as shown in the flowchart (Fig 1). For the analysis, the gold standard was defined as the medical COD certificate. Thus, the final diagnosis recorded in the A&D registers (or provisional diagnosis if no final diagnosis recorded) was compared with that recorded in the medical COD certificate. If no certificate was issued, the diagnosis was compared with that in either the clinician’s notes or neonatal death audit record.

Fig 1. Flowchart for data abstraction from mortality data sources (COD: Cause of death).

Fig 1

Data analysis

The diagnosis in the A&D register was said to be accurately matched to that in the validation source if the two diagnoses were consistent. Within a lot of twenty sampled IND (n = 20) with Xi accurately matched diagnoses and decision rule ‘d’, if Xi ≥ d, then the lot was classified as having accurate COD data. If Xi < d, then the lot would have failed to achieve the target of having accurate COD data. The threshold for accurate data was set at 95%. According to the Lemeshow and Taber’s LQAS table, for a target of 95% and sample size of 20, the decision rule ‘d’ is 17, meaning a lot would have a minimum of 17 accurately matched diagnoses to have accurate COD data.

Decision rule: If Xi ≥ 17, the lot has accurate cause of neonatal death data; Xi < d, the lot does not have accurate cause of neonatal death data.

Data across the lots were aggregated to provide overall, regional-level and yearly weighted estimates of data accuracy. Weighting was necessary to adjust for the differences in total facility and yearly IND burden and was done using the direct adjustment method. Lots were weighted according to their proportionate contribution to the total IND burden. For each lot, the proportion of accurately matched diagnoses was multiplied by the weight (number of IND for the lot divided by the total number of IND) to obtain the weighted proportion of accurately matched diagnoses for the lot. The overall, regional-level and yearly weighted accuracy estimates were then calculated by summing up the individual weighted estimates of involved lots.

Ethical considerations

Approval for the independent evaluation of MEBCI was granted by GHS Ethical Review Approval Board on 18th August 2017, with identification number GHS-ERC 20/06/17. Permission was obtained from the Director General of the GHS as well as the regional health directorates and health facilities before data collection commenced. Patient informed consent was waived by the ethics committee due to the nature of the evaluation. Patients’ folder numbers were abstracted from admission and discharge registers only to be able to trace medical cause of death certificates, mortality audit reports or clinical notes. Following validation of cause of death diagnosis, folder numbers were replaced with numbers assigned by data abstractor in the study database. Only study authors have access to anonymized individual-level data.

Results

Characteristics of lots

Overall, 80 lots (20 per year) were sampled, out of which 52 (65%) had sufficient minimum neonatal deaths for the LQAS survey. Majority were from 2016 (16/52, 30.7%) and 2017 (16/52, 30.7%) (Fig 2). Ten (19.2%) out of the 52 lots were from facilities located in Ashanti region while Brong Ahafo, Eastern and Volta each had 14 (26.9%) lots from health facilities located in these regions. About 40% (21/52) of selected lots were from government-owned facilities while the remainder (59.6% or 31/52) were from quasi-government facilities. A total of 1,040 neonatal deaths were obtained from the 52 lots.

Fig 2. Yearly distribution of lots with sufficient minimum data (≥ 20 neonatal deaths) and accurate data.

Fig 2

Availability of death certificates

Only 22.1% (230/1,040) of selected IND had death certificates issued, thus were validated using this gold standard. The remaining 77.9% of IND (810/1,040) were validated using clinician’s notes or neonatal death audit records. In two regions (Ashanti and Volta), no neonatal death certificates were issued at all during the study period. Eastern region had the highest proportion (60.7%, 170/280) of neonatal deaths issued medical COD certificates. In the four regions, the cumulative proportion of deaths issued certificates was highest in 2014 (33.3%, 60/180) and lowest in 2015 (18.2%, 40/220). Fewer IND had death certificates issued in the government facilities (19.0% i.e. 80/420) than in the quasi-government facilities (24.2% i.e. 150/620) (Table 1).

Table 1. Death certificate completion and accuracy of cause-specific neonatal mortality data in a sample of health facilities.

Variable % IND with death certificate completed Number of eligible lots Number (%) of lots with accurate data % estimate data accuracy (95% CI)
Region
Ashanti 0% (0/200) 10 4 (40.0%) 74.7 (70.9–78.4)
Brong Ahafo 21.4% (60/280) 14 7 (50.5%) 82.2 (79.9–84.5)
Eastern 60.7% (170/280) 14 4 (28.6%) 78.2 (76.0–80.4)
Volta 0% (0/280) 14 4 (28.6%) 62.5 (58.9–66.0)
Year
2014 33.3% (60/180) 9 2 (22.2%) 77.9 (74.8–81.0)
2015 18.2% (40/220) 11 4 (36.4%) 74.4 (71.3–77.4)
2016 19.1% (61/320) 11 9 (56.3%) 79.3 (76.9–81.8)
2017 21.6% (69/320) 16 4 (25.0%) 72.4 (69.8–74.9)
Facility ownership
Government 19.0% (80/420) 21 8 (38.1%) 72.6 (70.5–74.7)
Quasi-government 24.2% (150/620) 31 11 (35.5%) 78.6 (76.8–80.3)
Total 22.1% (230/1,040) 52 19 (36.5%) 75.9 (74.5–77.3)

Data accuracy

Overall, 75.9% (95% CI: 74.5–77.3) of neonatal COD data recorded in A&D registers from the four regions were accurately matched to the validation sources. The proportion was highest in Brong Ahafo region (82.2%, 95% CI: 79.9–84.5) and lowest in Volta region (62.5%, 95% CI: 58.9–66.0). The proportion of accurately matched data was also highest in 2016 (79.3%, 95% CI: 76.6–81.8) and lowest in 2017 (72.4%, 95% CI: 69.6–74.9). There were slightly more accurately matched diagnoses in quasi-government facilities (78.6%, 95% CI: 76.8–80.3), than in government facilities (72.6% 95% CI: 70.5–74.7) (Table 1). Examples of common accurately and inaccurately recorded COD in A&D registers, juxtaposed with COD recorded in the gold standard source document for the same neonate are presented in Table 2 for illustration purposes.

Table 2. Examples of common accurately and inaccurately matched recorded cause of death diagnosis.

Cause of death recorded in A&D register for neonate Cause of death recorded in gold standard source document for same neonate
Extreme prematurity Extreme prematurity
Neonatal sepsis Neonatal sepsis
Neonatal asphyxia Neonatal asphyxia
Neonatal jaundice Neonatal jaundice
Respiratory distress Congenital heart disease
Home delivery Neonatal sepsis
Respiratory distress Neonatal sepsis
HIV exposed baby Severe birth asphyxia
Intracranial space occupying lesion Neonatal tetanus

Of the 52 lots, a total of 19 (28.8%) met the target of ≥ 17/20 accurately matched diagnoses. There were regional variations, with only one region (Brong Ahafo) having about half of its lots meeting the desired target. Except for 2016, which had a little more than 50% of lots meeting the target, other years had less than 50% of lots meeting the target (Table 1). There were small differences in the proportion of lots meeting the target between government (38.1%, 8/21) and quasi-government hospitals (35.5%, 11/31).

Discussion

We assessed the accuracy of neonatal COD data recorded in health facility A&D registers across four administrative regions of Ghana from 2014 through 2017. We found that less than 25% of IND were accompanied by a medical death certificate, the gold standard, and thus had to be validated by other sources. Moreover, two of the four regions assessed issued zero medical death certificates for IND during the period under review. The overall accuracy of the 80 lots sampled was estimated at 76% though there were wide variations across calendar years, administrative regions and type of facility ownership.

The finding of low accuracy is not unexpected as studies in other developing countries report similar results [17, 23, 24, 32, 36, 37]. It is however unclear why health facilities in some selected regions had comparatively bigger proportions of lots meeting the target than the others, or why data accuracy varied over the years. The documentation of accurate data is influenced by several factors that include staff motivation and perceived usefulness of the data [38]. If data are deemed useful, there is the tendency to capture accurate information and all of its components [38]. The importance of accurate COD data is rooted in its implications should the wrong information be used to guide priorities, policies or interventions at the local or national level. Neonatal interventions are targeted at different periods during pre-pregnancy, pregnancy, delivery and the postnatal period depending on the disease of interest. For example, interventions for asphyxia may be targeted for the intrapartum and immediate postnatal period, whilst those for some congenital malformations may be most effective during early pregnancy or before conception. Due to the cost associated with implementing such interventions at large scale, data-driven decision-making processes are critical to monitor the interventions, optimise their impact and prevent wastage, especially in resource-constrained settings such as Ghana [2, 8].

A&D registers are important original sources of routine health surveillance data. Although we assessed only the accuracy of mortality data, it is possible that morbidity data which share the same source documents would equally be of low accuracy. Data from registers are eventually fed into the national health information database and used to inform policies, monitor interventions and contribute to the literature on neonatal mortality. Against the background of poor vital registration in developing countries, hospital registers remain essential alternate sources of COD data [12, 13, 20]. In neonates, many diseases interact, and it is advantageous to know the specific complications contributing to neonatal deaths. For example, in one sampled facility, it was observed that neonatal deaths attributable to birth asphyxia, as recorded in A&D registers, were actually due to congenital heart diseases. Many such scenarios were detected in preterm neonates dying from sepsis or aspiration pneumonia rather than from direct complications of prematurity. These findings undermine the usefulness of registers as credible sources of morbidity and mortality information and reduce practitioners’ and policymakers’ ability to make decisions based on local real-time data.

A key component of data quality is data accessibility, which is assessed by the availability of the required information for action. The Registration of Birth and Deaths Act (ACT) 301 implemented in 1965 outlines the procedure for death registration, which begins with the last attending medical practitioner providing a COD for all deaths occurring in health facilities, including foetal deaths [21]. Medical COD certificates also serve many purposes other than for death registration. They are an important source of routine cause of death data and may be used to determine the leading causes of death for setting health interventions. They may also be required as proof of death for claim to life insurance benefits and inheritance. Therefore, their low issuance is very disconcerting as it does not conform to the legal directive by the Registry of Births and Deaths Act. Also, using these incomplete, thus, unreliable data to set interventions aimed at reducing neonatal mortality can potentially mislead decision makers to set inappropriate interventions, which may consequently fail to achieve the intended targets. In Ghana, although no study has assessed the proportion of deaths issued death certificates to our knowledge, their demand before issuing burial permits for burials in public cemeteries as well for medico-legal reasons (e.g. for inheritance claims) ensures the certification of many adult deaths. However, for neonates who are mostly buried on family lands, this procedure is not duly followed. Moreover, the demand for a certificate for neonatal death is low due to its perceived insignificance as a legal document and medical practitioners not knowing of its legal backing.

The LQAS method has increasingly been accepted as a quick and less expensive alternative to traditional surveys, and has been employed in monitoring by programmes, health surveys and data quality assessments [3945]. The primary objective of LQAS in this data accuracy assessment was to categorize sampled facilities which had accurate data and which did not, using a 5% error margin. Grouping them would make it easier to determine which facilities required an intervention. Although not the primary aim, we also aggregated data from the lots to provide an estimate of the level of data accuracy. We found the level of data accuracy for the four regions, and for each region to be similar to values found in other African countries [23, 24, 37].

Limitations

Although the different data sources for validation might have different levels of precision regarding the cause of death or diagnosis, the underlying principal diagnoses were expected to remain the same irrespective of the source. Only few facilities were sampled from each region. However, they were presumed representative of the regions as they contributed the greatest proportions to the neonatal death burden across the facilities that benefited from MEBCI. Despite the small sample size that was used, we expected that estimates derived would provide statistically reasonable inferences, similar to those derived from large sample surveys.

Conclusion

COD certificates were not reliably completed for neonatal deaths from 2014 through 2017 in major health facilities across four regions in Ghana. The COD or final diagnosis data recorded A&D registers in many of these facilities were found to be inaccurate. Both of these findings limit the ability to monitor the effectiveness of health system interventions and guide programmatic and policy decisions needed to accelerate the reduction of neonatal deaths and contribute towards the achievement of SDG3. We recommend to the Ghana Health Service to include a review of neonatal death certificates in neonatal death audits to ensure it gets completed. Periodic data quality assessments can determine the magnitude of the data quality concerns and guide site-specific improvements in data management.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Regional Health Directors, Regional Neonatal Focal Persons, and health staff of participating facilities for their assistance. We would like to express our gratitude to TD Health staff for all their support.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The study was funded by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation with project code R-1703-01827-TD Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Alexander M, Alkema L. Global estimation of neonatal mortality using a Bayesian hierarchical splines regression model. Demogr Res. 2018. January 25;38: 335–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Baqui AH, Darmstadt GL, Williams EK, Kumar V, Kiran TU, Panwar D, et al. Rates, timing and causes of neonatal deaths in rural India: implications for neonatal health programmes. Bull World Health Organ. 2006. September;84(9):706–13. 10.2471/blt.05.026443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Welaga P, Moyer CA, Aborigo R, Adongo P, Williams J, Hodgson A, et al. Why Are Babies Dying in the First Month after Birth? A 7-Year Study of Neonatal Mortality in Northern Ghana. Moormann AM, editor. PLoS ONE. 2013. March 19;8(3):e58924. 10.1371/journal.pone.0058924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.UNICEF, WHO, The World Bank Group, UN Population Division. Levels & trends in child mortality: report 2018. Estimates developed by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation https://childmortality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/UN-IGME-Child-Mortality-Report-2018.pdf (2018), Accessed 2019 Jan 24
  • 5.Lawn JE, Kerber K, Enweronu-Laryea C, Cousens S. 3.6 Million Neonatal Deaths—What Is Progressing and What Is Not? Semin Perinatol. 2010. December;34(6):371–86. 10.1053/j.semperi.2010.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Schmidt H, Gostin LO, Emanuel EJ. Public health, Universal Health Coverage, and Sustainable Development Goals: Can They Coexist? The Lancet. 2015. August;386(9996): 928–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wardlaw T, You D, Hug L, Amouzou A, Newby H. UNICEF Report: enormous progress in child survival but greater focus on neonates urgently needed. Reprod Health. 2014. December;11(1): 82. 10.1186/1742-4755-11-82 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). Neonatal mortality. 2018. Available from: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/neonatal-mortality/
  • 9.UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). Under-five mortality. 2018. Available from: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/under-five-mortality/
  • 10.Li Z, Hsiao Y, Godwin J, Martin BD, Wakefield J, Clark SJ, et al. (2019) Changes in the spatial distribution of the under-five mortality rate: Small-area analysis of 122 DHS surveys in 262 subregions of 35 countries in Africa. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210645. 10.1371/journal.pone.0210645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ghana Health Service. Ghana National Neonatal Health Strategy and Action. 2018. Available from: https://www.healthynewbornnetwork.org
  • 12.Morris SS, Black RE, Tomaskovic L. Predicting the distribution of under-five deaths by cause in countries without adequate vital registration systems. Int J Epidemiol. 2003. December;32(6):1041–51. 10.1093/ije/dyg241 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mikkelsen L, Phillips DE, AbouZahr C, Setel PW, de Savigny D, Lozano R, et al. A global assessment of civil registration and vital statistics systems: monitoring data quality and progress. The Lancet. 2015. October;386(10001):1395–406. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60171-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rao C, Bradshaw D, Mathers CD. Improving death registration and statistics in developing countries: Lessons from sub-Saharan Africa. South Afr J Demogr. 2004;9(2):81–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bryce J, Boschi-Pinto C, Shibuya K, Black RE. WHO estimates of the causes of death in children. The Lancet. 2005. March;365(9465):1147–52. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71877-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mate KS, Bennett B, Mphatswe W, Barker P, Rollins N. Challenges for Routine Health System Data Management in a Large Public Programme to Prevent Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission in South Africa. PLoS ONE. 2009. May 12;4(5):e5483. 10.1371/journal.pone.0005483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mphatswe W, Mate KS, Bennett B, Ngidi H, Reddy J, Rollins N. Improving public health information: a data quality intervention in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Bull World Health Organ 2012;90:176–82. 10.2471/BLT.11.092759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Alkema L, New JR. Global Estimation of Child Mortality Using a Bayesian B-Spline Bias-Reduction Model. Ann Appl Stat. 2014;8(4):2122–2149. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), Ghana Health Service (GHS), and ICF. Ghana Maternal Health Survey 2017. Accra, Ghana: GSS, GHS, and ICF; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ohemeng-Dapaah S, Pronyk P, Akosa E, Nemser B, Kanter AS. Combining vital events registration, verbal autopsy and electronic medical records in rural Ghana for improved health services delivery. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):416–420. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ghana Statistical Service (GSS). Civil Registration and Vital Statistics System in Ghana—Report on the Comprehensive Assessment. GSS; 2015. July. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Births and Deaths Registry. Registration of Births and Deaths ACT, 1965 ACT 301. 1965.
  • 23.Hotchkiss DR, Aqil A, Lippeveld T, Mukooyo E. Evaluation of the Performance of Routine Information System Management (PRISM) framework: evidence from Uganda. BMC Health Serv Res 10, 188 (2010). 10.1186/1472-6963-10-188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Aqil A, Lippeveld T, Hozumi D. PRISM framework: a paradigm shift for designing, strengthening and evaluating routine health information systems. Health Policy Plan. 2009. May 1;24(3):217–28. 10.1093/heapol/czp010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mbondji PE, Kebede D, Soumbey-Alley EW, Zielinski C, Kouvividila W, Lusamba-Dikassa P-S. Health information systems in Africa: descriptive analysis of data sources, information products and health statistics. J R Soc Med. 2014. May;107(1_suppl):34–45. 10.1177/0141076814531750 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.de Souza DK, Yirenkyi E, Otchere J, Biritwum N-K, Ameme DK, Sackey S, et al. Assessing Lymphatic Filariasis Data Quality in Endemic Communities in Ghana, Using the Neglected Tropical Diseases Data Quality Assessment Tool for Preventive Chemotherapy. Lammie PJ, editor. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016. March 30;10(3):e0004590. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Opare J, Ohuabunwo C, Agongo E, Afari E, Sackey S, Wurapa F. Improving surveillance for non-communicable diseases in the Eastern Region of Ghana—2011. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, 5(2), 87–94 [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Frimpong-Mansoh RP, Laryea Calys-Tagoe BN, Therson-Coffie EF, Antwi-Agyei KO. Evaluation of the tuberculosis surveillance system in the Ashaiman municipality, in Ghana. Pan Afr Med J. 2018;31:126. 10.11604/pamj.2018.31.126.14993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Akakpo PK, Awuku YA, Derkyi-Kwarteng L, Gyamera KA, Eliason S. Review of errors in the issue of medical certificates of cause of death in a tertiary hospital in Ghana. Ghana Med J. 2017. April 30;51(1):30. 10.4314/gmj.v51i1.6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Aljerian K. Death certificate errors in one Saudi Arabian hospital. Death Studies. 2019;43(5), 311–315, 10.1080/07481187.2018.1461712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lemeshow S, Taber S. Lot Quality Assurance Sampling: Single- and Double-Sampling Plans. World Health Stat. 1991;44(3):115–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Glèlè Ahanhanzo Y, Ouendo E-M, Kpozèhouen A, Levêque A, Makoutodé M, Dramaix-Wilmet M. Data quality assessment in the routine health information system: an application of the Lot Quality Assurance Sampling in Benin. Health Policy Plan. 2015. September;30(7):837–43. 10.1093/heapol/czu067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hund L, Pagano M. Extending cluster lot quality assurance sampling designs for surveillance programs. Stat Med. 2014. July 20;33(16):2746–57. 10.1002/sim.6145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Alberti KP, Guthmann JP, Fermon F, Nargaye KD, Grais RF. Use of Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) to estimate vaccination coverage helps guide future vaccination efforts. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008. March;102(3):251–4. 10.1016/j.trstmh.2007.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Biedron C, Pagano M, Hedt BL, Kilian A, Ratcliffe A, Mabunda S, et al. An assessment of Lot Quality Assurance Sampling to evaluate malaria outcome indicators: extending malaria indicator surveys. Int J Epidemiol. 2010. February;39(1):72–9. 10.1093/ije/dyp363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Roomaney RA, Pillay-van Wyk V, Awotiwon OF, Nicol E, Joubert JD, Bradshaw D, et al. Availability and quality of routine morbidity data: review of studies in South Africa. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2016. June 29;24(e1):e194–e206. 10.1093/jamia/ocw075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Belay H, Azim T, Kassahun H. Assessment of Health Management Information System (HMIS) Performance in SNNPR, Ethiopia. MEASURE Evaluation; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Condelli L, Shaewitz D, Duffy A, Movit M, Hollender D, Keenan C, et al. Linking Data Quality With Action: Evaluating and Improving Local Program Performance. Enhancing and Strengthening Accountability in Adult Education project; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pillay JD, Knight S. Using lot quality assurance sampling methodology to evaluate the u Thukela District Child Survival Project of KwaZulu-Natal. South Afr J Epidemiol Infect. 2010. January;25(2):22–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jezmir J, Cohen T, Zignol M, Nyakan E, Hedt-Gauthier BL, Gardner A, et al. Use of Lot Quality Assurance Sampling to Ascertain Levels of Drug Resistant Tuberculosis in Western Kenya. Chatterji D, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016. May 11;11(5):e0154142. 10.1371/journal.pone.0154142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Myatt M, Mai NTP, Quynh NQ, Nga NH, Tai HH, Long NH, et al. Using lot quality-assurance sampling and area sampling to identify priority areas for trachoma control: Viet Nam. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(10):756–63. doi: /S0042-96862005001000012 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tikmani S, Saleem S, McClure E, Naqvi F, Abrejo F, Soomro Z, et al. Monitoring of birth registry coverage and data quality utilizing lot quality assurance sampling methodology: A pilot study. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2018;7(3):522. 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_59_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pham K, Sharpe EC, Weiss WM, Vu A. The use of a lot quality assurance sampling methodology to assess and manage primary health interventions in conflict-affected West Darfur, Sudan. Popul Health Metr. 2016. December;14(1). 10.1186/s12963-016-0103-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hedt-Gauthier BL, Tenthani L, Mitchell S, Chimbwandira FM, Makombe S, Chirwa Z, et al. Improving data quality and supervision of antiretroviral therapy sites in Malawi: an application of Lot Quality Assurance Sampling. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012. December;12(1). 10.1186/1472-6963-12-196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ouendo E, Kpoze A, Leve A, Makoutode M. Data quality assessment in the routine health information system: an application of the Lot Quality Assurance Sampling in Benin. Health Policy and Planning. 2015;30:837–843. 10.1093/heapol/czu067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ricardo Q Gurgel

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

22 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-01438

Evaluating the completeness and accuracy of cause of institutional neonatal death data in Ghana using lot quality assurance sampling

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. %LAST_NAME%,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please note that all suggestions must be faced and listed with the response following it. If any suggestion was not accepted, please justify it convincingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by %DATE_REVISION_DUE%. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ricardo Q. Gurgel, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. ‘In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

3.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

3.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes 

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Line 3 : Short title seems better

Line 23 : Language correction ; mentioned as sticky note

Line 104, method section : To omit cost analysis as was not reflected in method section on how it was done and in result section also

Line 170 : Table 1 ; to omit content in bracket in column 5 as information is given in method section

Line 216 : To omit the line as it was not objective/ result findings

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I have reviewed your manuscript and read with a great interest. The application of LQAS technique for evaluating the completeness and accuracy of cause of institutional neonatal death data in Ghana is a relevant technique that facilitate rapid and statistically valid data quality assessment in SSA countries. Below are some comments which I think, if considered would strengthen your manuscript.

Abstract

-->Please consider separating the "Methods" from "Findings", and name the later as "Results".

-->Methods: provide a brief description about the number of lights included in the study. In this description, be specific about number of lots by facility, year and total (overall). This will ensure easiness of understanding your results. Please be specific also about the measure of completeness of COD data.

-->Results: only summarise the key findings, i.e., related to completeness and accuracy of causes of IND data. For example, "Nineteen out of 52 (36.5%) eligible lots met the target for accurate COD." How many of these were accurate? If the answer is 76%, then this sentence should have come before reporting accuracy results.

-->Conclusion: are the death certificates the source of routine data used for policy and administrative decision making? The conclusion both in the abstract and the main text started with indicating that they were not reliably completed. What would be the implications for this?

Introduction

-->Line 64-65, specific the number of neaonatal and U5 deaths reduced from what specific values between the specified years. Consider also splitting the sentence in two parts where you started with "in fact..." on line 66.

Methods

-->Context: Line 103-104, in your sentence you mentioned "...qualitative and quantitative health". Please rephrase this to make it easier to understand. The first paragraph showing the context provided a brief background or the motivation for this study. However, in the discussion, have you considered comparing your results to those reported by the MEBCI project? What data quality issues did they report compared to your findings? In this paragraph, consider also specifying the initial data quality concerns/ issues observed or reported before this study. Also, did the MEBCI publish any paper relating such data quality issues? If so, incorporate such findings as part of the context section.

-->Line 121: A multistage sampling technique was used to sample what?

-->Data collection and analysis: Consider splitting data collection and data analysis sections. Also, to enable understanding the LQAS methodology, I recommend you have a section of "Sample size and Sampling" where the second paragraph of the context section will fit better. Within this new section you also provide the formula used for sample size calculation (if used) as well as the threshold value(s) as per the LQAS theory. This is very important to readers who never heard of this methodology. After providing the sample size information, then describe the assumptions of LQAS and how it was applied as described in the first paragraph of data collection and analysis.

-->The information on the second paragraph of data collection and analysis section can go to the section describing "Data collection".

-->Line 146-148: Data accuracy was set at 95% and further described as 17/20 correct match to mean accuracy. Someone would imply 17/20 as 85% instead of 95%. To avoid confusion, please rephrase this sentence and provide a more clear description of the value of accuracy used in relation of 17/20 correct matches.

-->Line 148-149: You stated that. "Data from the lots were aggregated to provide weighted estimates of accuracy for the regions and years." Did you actually weight the data? How was this done? Provide a description in the data analysis section.

Results

-->For all figure citations within the text, I think the journal recommends citing as Fig 1. Fig 2

-->The descriptions related to Table 1 are summary estimates. I recommend you combine Table 1 and 2, i.e., Table 1 to be summarised in Table 2. Otherwise, summarise the information about the number of lots in Table 2 for ease of reference with the number of lots with accurate data. It is important to ensure such descriptions are reflected in your table(s).

-->The columns in Table 2 are about validated with death certificates and clinician’s note or audit report. However, the title is about "Death certificate completion..." which I think does not reflect the content within this table. Please consider rephrasing to reflect the actual information. Likewise, lines 173-180 the descriptions are more on the death certificates issued while the results in the table are about the percentages (and numbers) of IND validated against the source documents. Please revise.

-->The last column of table 2, how were these percentages calculated. Please describe that in the methods section (data analysis) and/ or below this table.

-->Table 3: Consider including the most common causes of IND that were correctly matched. The reason for this is because, it would be even more informative to understand the common causes of neonatal deaths in Ghanaian health facilities. Correct matches is also a part of data quality (i.e., high accurate data). So, I think these should also be reported.

-->Please cite the respective table number where the results which are below Table 3 are described.

Discussion

-->The sentence in Line 242-243 "Medical COD certificates also serve many purposes other than for death registration." Specify the purposes for Medical COD certificates. This would also justify your conclusions. Please consider citing other literature (if any) that may support such purposes.

Conclusion

-->Based on the paragraph in line 226, A&D registers are important original source of routine health surveillance data. In your study, COD certificates were one of the reference documents to verify the causes of death data and therefore used to measure/ determine accuracy. My question is, why conclude COD certificates as unreliable, while also their data are not entered in the national system? Please consider this and revise your conclusion also in the abstract.

References

-->Please verify and correct some of your references such as number 27, 37 and 38.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Sanjoy Kumer Dey

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 4;16(3):e0239049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239049.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Aug 2020

Response to Editor and Reviewers

Editor’s comments

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found athttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We have ensured that all files meet the PLOS ONE requirements.

2. ‘In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Response: We thank the editor for drawing our attention to this. Patient informed consent was waived by the ethics committee due to the nature of the evaluation. Patients’ folder numbers were abstracted from admission and discharge registers only to be able to trace medical cause of death certificates, mortality audit reports or clinical notes. Following validation of cause of death diagnosis, folder numbers were replaced with numbers assigned by data abstractor in the study database. Only study authors have access to anonymized individual-level data. The ethics statement has been updated with this information. (Lines 173-180)

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

3.1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

3.2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Response: The figure (formerly Figure 1) has been removed.

Reviewer #1

Line 3: Short title seems better

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have changed the manuscript’s title from ‘Evaluating the completeness and accuracy of cause of institutional neonatal death data in Ghana using lot quality assurance sampling’ to ‘Evaluation of neonatal mortality data completeness and accuracy in Ghana’.

Line 23: Language correction; mentioned as sticky note

Response: We thank the reviewer for the correction. The sentenced has been corrected to read ‘Cause-specific mortality data are required to set interventions to reduce neonatal mortality.’ (Line 23)

Line 104, method section: To omit cost analysis as was not reflected in method section on how it was done and in result section also

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The sentence has been omitted.

Line 170: Table 1; to omit content in bracket in column 5 as information is given in method section

Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for drawing our attention to this. The content has been omitted.

Line 216: To omit the line as it was not objective/ result findings

Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for the suggestion. The sentence ‘With no incentive or feedback given to health staff, they may not be motivated to report quality data’ has been omitted.

Reviewer #2

Dear Authors, I have reviewed your manuscript and read with a great interest. The application of LQAS technique for evaluating the completeness and accuracy of cause of institutional neonatal death data in Ghana is a relevant technique that facilitate rapid and statistically valid data quality assessment in SSA countries. Below are some comments which I think, if considered would strengthen your manuscript.

Abstract

-->Please consider separating the "Methods" from "Findings", and name the later as "Results".

Response: We take note of the comment. We have separated the ‘Methods’ and ‘Findings’ sections of the abstract and renamed the latter as ‘Results’.

-->Methods: provide a brief description about the number of lights included in the study. In this description, be specific about number of lots by facility, year and total (overall). This will ensure easiness of understanding your results. Please be specific also about the measure of completeness of COD data.

Response: We take note of this instructive feedback. The ‘Methods’ section of the abstract has been revised to describe the distribution of the lots by year and region, and how data completeness was measured. The revised ‘Methods’ section is provided below.

‘A lot quality assurance sampling survey was conducted in 20 hospitals in the public sector across four regions of Ghana. Institutional neonatal deaths (IND) occurring from 2014 through 2017 were divided into lots, defined as neonatal deaths occurring in a selected facility in a calendar year. A total of 52 eligible lots were selected: 10 from Ashanti region, and 14 each from Brong Ahafo, Eastern and Volta region. Nine lots were from 2014, 11 from 2015 and 16 each were from 2016 and 2017. The cause of death (COD) of 20 IND per lot were abstracted from admission and discharge (A&D) registers and validated against the COD recorded in death certificates, clinician's notes or neonatal death audit reports for consistency. With the error threshold set at 5%, ≥ 17 correctly matched diagnoses in a sample of 20 deaths would make the lot accurate for COD diagnosis. Completeness of COD data was measured by calculating the proportion of IND that had death certificates completed.’ (Lines 27-36)

-->Results: Only summarise the key findings, i.e., related to completeness and accuracy of causes of IND data. For example, "Nineteen out of 52 (36.5%) eligible lots met the target for accurate COD." How many of these were accurate? If the answer is 76%, then this sentence should have come before reporting accuracy results.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the feedback. The ‘Results’ section of the abstract has been revised appropriately and reads as follows:

‘Nineteen out of 52 eligible (36.5%) lots had accurate COD diagnoses recorded in their A&D registers. The regional distribution of lots with accurate COD data is as follows: Ashanti (4, 21.2%), Brong Ahafo (7, 36.8%), Eastern (4, 21.1%) and Volta (4, 21.1%). Majority (9, 47.4%) of lots with accurate data were from 2016, followed by 2015 and 2017 with four (21.1%) lots. Two (10.5%) lots had accurate COD data in 2014. Only 22% (239/1040) of sampled IND had completed death certificates.’ (Lines 37-41)

-->Conclusion: Are the death certificates the source of routine data used for policy and administrative decision making? The conclusion both in the abstract and the main text started with indicating that they were not reliably completed. What would be the implications for this?

Response: Yes. Medical cause of death certificate is an important source of information on the leading causes of mortality for policy and administrative decision making in the country. Unreliable data on the causes of neonatal mortality can potentially mislead decision makers to set inappropriate interventions. This implication has been stated in the ‘Discussion’ section in the main text and is as follows:

‘...Therefore, their low issuance is very disconcerting as it does not conform to the legal directive by the Registry of Births and Deaths Act. Also, using these incomplete, thus, unreliable data to set interventions aimed at reducing neonatal mortality can potentially mislead decision makers to set inappropriate interventions, which may consequently fail to achieve the intended targets.’ (Lines 264-268)

Introduction

-->Line 64-65, specific the number of neonatal and U5 deaths reduced from what specific values between the specified years. Consider also splitting the sentence in two parts where you started with "in fact..." on line 66.

Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for the comment. We have provided the specific numbers for neonatal and U5 deaths for the specified years. The sentence has been revised and reads as follows:

‘ Ghana, like other developing countries has experienced a much smaller reduction in neonatal mortality, reducing by 42% from 43 per 1,000 live births in 1988 to 25 per 1,000 live births in 2017, compared to under-five mortality which reduced by 67% from 155 per 1,000 live births in 1988 to 52 per 1,000 live births in 2017 (19). In fact, between 2007 and 2018, Ghana’s neonatal mortality rate reduced by only 14% from 29 to 25 deaths per 1,000 live births (19). (Lines 66-70)

Methods

-->Context: Line 103-104, in your sentence you mentioned "...qualitative and quantitative health". Please rephrase this to make it easier to understand. The first paragraph showing the context provided a brief background or the motivation for this study. However, in the discussion, have you considered comparing your results to those reported by the MEBCI project? What data quality issues did they report compared to your findings? In this paragraph, consider also specifying the initial data quality concerns/ issues observed or reported before this study. Also, did the MEBCI publish any paper relating such data quality issues? If so, incorporate such findings as part of the context section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestions. The sentence ‘The evaluation of MEBCI comprised three components; cost analysis, qualitative and quantitative health.’ has been omitted.

We observed during preliminary data analysis of cause of neonatal mortality that some listed causes of death (COD) diagnosis such as HIV-exposed baby, Hepatitis B infection, and home delivery could physiologically not have caused the neonatal mortality. The MEBCI project did not officially publish the earlier findings, but rather sought to quantify the extent of the data quality issues, necessitating this study. The methods section has been modified to provide readers more information about the context for the study.

‘During preliminary analysis of the COD data, concerns about some listed neonatal COD diagnoses such as HIV infection and Hepatitis B infection arose. This study was undertaken due to concerns about the quality of the data following this preliminary analysis. (Lines 109-111)

Line 121: A multistage sampling was used to sample what?

Response: We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to this. We have reviewed the sentence and reads; ‘A multi-stage sampling technique was used to sample IND. (Line127)

-->Data collection and analysis: Consider splitting data collection and data analysis sections. Also, to enable understanding the LQAS methodology, I recommend you have a section of "Sample size and Sampling" where the second paragraph of the context section will fit better. Within this new section you also provide the formula used for sample size calculation (if used) as well as the threshold value(s) as per the LQAS theory. This is very important to readers who never heard of this methodology. After providing the sample size information, then describe the assumptions of LQAS and how it was applied as described in the first paragraph of data collection and analysis.

Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for bringing our attention to these. We have created separate sections for ‘Sample size and sampling’, ‘Data collection’ and ‘Data analysis’. No formula was used for sample size estimation.

We have also provided under the newly created section ‘Sample size and Sampling’ the assumption underlying the LQAS method and a summary of its application (Lines 114-123).

A detailed sampling and data collection process for the LQAS has been described in ‘Sample size and Sampling’ and ‘Data collection’ sections (Lines 125-152).

Under the section ‘Data analysis, we have described how the decision rule for LQAS was applied in our study (Lines 155-170).

-->The information on the second paragraph of data collection and analysis section can go to the section describing "Data collection".

Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for the comment. The paragraph ‘Data abstraction was done by a public health physician with clinical ………… If no certificate was issued, the diagnosis was compared with that in either the clinician’s notes or neonatal death audit record.’ has been moved to the section describing ‘Data collection’. (Lines 142-152)

-->Line 146-148: Data accuracy was set at 95% and further described as 17/20 correct match to mean accuracy. Someone would imply 17/20 as 85% instead of 95%. To avoid confusion, please rephrase this sentence and provide a more clear description of the value of accuracy used in relation of 17/20 correct matches.

Response: Under the newly created ‘Data analysis’ section, a clearer description of how the decision theory was applied has been provided and is provided below.

‘The diagnosis in the A&D register was said to be accurately matched to that in the validation source if the two diagnoses were consistent. Within a lot of twenty sampled IND (n = 20) with Xi accurately matched diagnoses and decision rule ‘d’, if Xi ≥ d, then the lot was classified as having accurate COD data. If Xi ˂ d, then the lot would have failed to achieve the target of having accurate COD data. The threshold for accurate data was set at 95%. According to the Lemeshow and Taber’s LQAS table, for a target of 95% and sample size of 20, the decision rule ‘d’ is 17, meaning a lot would have a minimum of 17 accurately matched diagnoses to have accurate COD data. Decision rule: If Xi ≥ 17, the lot has accurate cause of neonatal death data; Xi ˂ d, the lot does not have accurate cause of neonatal death data.’ (Lines 155-163)

-->Line 148-149: You stated that. "Data from the lots were aggregated to provide weighted estimates of accuracy for the regions and years." Did you actually weight the data? How was this done? Provide a description in the data analysis section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the feedback. Under the newly created ‘Data analysis’ section, we have described how weighting was done to obtain the weighted accuracy estimates.

‘Data across the lots were aggregated to provide overall, regional-level and yearly weighted estimates of data accuracy. Weighting was necessary to adjust for the differences in total facility and yearly IND burden and was done using the direct adjustment method. Lots were weighted according to their proportionate contribution to the total IND burden. For each lot, the proportion of accurately matched diagnoses was multiplied by the weight (number of IND for the lot divided by the total number of IND) to obtain the weighted proportion of accurately matched diagnoses for the lot. The overall, regional-level and yearly weighted accuracy estimates were then calculated by summing up the individual weighted estimates of involved lots.’ (Lines 164-171)

Results

-->For all figure citations within the text, I think the journal recommends citing as Fig 1. Fig 2

Response: We thank the reviewer for the correction. We have appropriately renamed the figures in the text. (Lines 148 and185)

-->The descriptions related to Table 1 are summary estimates. I recommend you combine Table 1 and 2, i.e., Table 1 to be summarised in Table 2. Otherwise, summarise the information about the number of lots in Table 2 for ease of reference with the number of lots with accurate data. It is important to ensure such descriptions are reflected in your table(s).

Response: The comment is well noted. We have combined the tables 1 and 2 and created a new column in the new table ‘Table 1’ for ‘number of eligible lots’ to facilitate reference. (Line 202)

-->The columns in Table 2 are about validated with death certificates and clinician’s note or audit report. However, the title is about "Death certificate completion..." which I think does not reflect the content within this table. Please consider rephrasing to reflect the actual information. Likewise, lines 173-180 the descriptions are more on the death certificates issued while the results in the table are about the percentages (and numbers) of IND validated against the source documents. Please revise.

Response: The column headings in formerly Table 2, now Table 1 have been revised accordingly to reflect the information in the title and text. (Line 202)

-->The last column of table 2, how were these percentages calculated. Please describe that in the methods section (data analysis) and/ or below this table.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have described under the newly created ‘Data analysis’ section, how we calculated the weighted accuracy estimates.

‘Data across the lots were aggregated to provide overall, regional-level and yearly weighted estimates of data accuracy. Weighting was necessary to adjust for the differences in total facility and yearly IND burden and was done using the direct adjustment method. Lots were weighted according to their proportionate contribution to the total IND burden. For each lot, the proportion of accurately matched diagnoses was multiplied by the weight (number of IND for the lot divided by the total number of IND) to obtain the weighted proportion of accurately matched diagnoses for the lot. The overall, regional-level and yearly weighted accuracy estimates were then calculated by summing up the individual weighted estimates of involved lots. (Lines 164-171)

-->Table 3: Consider including the most common causes of IND that were correctly matched. The reason for this is because, it would be even more informative to understand the common causes of neonatal deaths in Ghanaian health facilities. Correct matches is also a part of data quality (i.e., high accurate data). So, I think these should also be reported.

Response: The comment is well noted. We have included in the table, now Table 2, common cause of death (COD) diagnoses that were correctly matched. (Line 216)

-->Please cite the respective table number where the results which are below Table 3 are described.

Response: We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to this. We have appropriately cited the respective table number.

‘… Except for 2016, which had a little more than 50% of lots meeting the target, other years had less than 50% of lots meeting the target (Table 1). (Line 220-221)

Discussion

-->The sentence in Line 242-243 "Medical COD certificates also serve many purposes other than for death registration." Specify the purposes for Medical COD certificates. This would also justify your conclusions. Please consider citing other literature (if any) that may support such purposes

Response: We are grateful to the reviewer for the feedback. We have revised the sentence to include the uses of medical cause of death certificates.

‘Medical COD certificates also serve many purposes other than for death registration. They are an important source of routine cause of death data and may be used to determine the leading causes of death for health interventions. They may also be required as proof of death for claim to life insurance, pension benefits and inheritance.’ (Lines 261-264)

Conclusion

-->Based on the paragraph in line 226, A&D registers are important original source of routine health surveillance data. In your study, COD certificates were one of the reference documents to verify the causes of death data and therefore used to measure/ determine accuracy. My question is, why conclude COD certificates as unreliable, while also their data are not entered in the national system? Please consider this and revise your conclusion also in the abstract.

Response: The reviewer’s comment is well noted. Both A&D registers and medical cause of death certificates are important sources of routine mortality data. A&D registers are usually completed during the initial stage of hospital admission when investigations may be pending, thus a provisional diagnosis may be entered. The register may then be updated with the final diagnosis upon discharge of patient from the hospital or death of the patient. The medical cause of death certificate, which contains information on the immediate and underlying cause of death is completed by the last attending medical practitioner upon death of the patient. The death certificate is considered a more accurate source of COD data of the two because the most current diagnosis is used, thus the decision by authors to use the death certificates as the gold standard. In our study, we found out only 22% of sampled neonatal deaths had death certificates filled, thereby our conclusion that they were not reliably completed in a sample of health facilities. Ghana presently does not have a functional electronic national database for health facilities to enter their cause of death diagnoses.

References

-->Please verify and correct some of your references such as number 27, 37 and 38.

Response: We take note of this important comment. All references have been crosschecked and appropriately formatted to meet journal guidelines.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ricardo Q Gurgel

31 Aug 2020

Evaluation of neonatal mortality data completeness and accuracy in Ghana

PONE-D-20-01438R1

Dear Dr. Dadzie,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ricardo Q. Gurgel, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Response 1 : Evaluation of neonatal mortality data completeness and accuracy in Ghana

Comment : Can omit “ In Ghana” which can be included in methodology section

Response 2 ( Line 23 ): Seems OK

Response 3 ( Line 104) : seems Ok

Response 4 : Ok

Response 5 : done as per comments

Reviewer #2: All the initial comments have been addressed. I have some minor issues for your consideration;

-->Abstract, please write the numbers as n (%) instead of (n, %).

-->Methods, data analysis section line 156, describe what the notation Xi represent. If it represent lots, be specific for clarity.

-->Results, Table 1 on line 203, indicate whether the % IND and n (%) in the last two columns were weighted. Either start with the word "weighted" or put a not below the table.

Also, why did you chose to delete the column on %IND validated with the clinician's note or audit report? Were these not an important findings? Because clinician's note or audit report was one of the validation sources, consider incorporating such results in the results and discussion sections.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Ricardo Q Gurgel

3 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-01438R1

Evaluation of neonatal mortality data completeness and accuracy in Ghana

Dear Dr. Dadzie:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Ricardo Q. Gurgel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES