Sample registration of vital events with verbal autopsy: a renewed commitment to measuring and monitoring vital statistics

Registration of births, recording deaths by age, sex and cause, and calculating mortality levels and differentials are fundamental to evidence-based health policy, monitoring and evaluation. Yet few of the countries with the greatest need for these data have functioning systems to produce them despite legislation providing for the establishment and maintenance of vital registration. Sample vital registration (SVR), when applied in conjunction with validated verbal autopsy, procedures and implemented in a nationally representative sample of population clusters represents an affordable, cost-effective, and sustainable short- and medium-term solution to this problem. SVR complements other information sources by producing age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality data that are more complete and continuous than those currently available. The tools and methods employed in an SVR system, however, are imperfect and require rigorous validation and continuous quality assurance; sampling strategies for SVR are also still evolving. Nonetheless, interest in establishing SVR is rapidly growing in Africa and Asia. Better systems for reporting and recording data on vital events will be sustainable only if developed hand-in-hand with existing health information strategies at the national and district levels; governance structures; and agendas for social research and development monitoring. If the global community wishes to have mortality measurements 5 or 10 years hence, the foundation stones of SVR must be laid today.

Victim-perpetrator differences in reports of hurtful events

This research project addressed limitations identified in previous studies of role differences (victim vs. perpetrator) in evaluations of hurtful events. The study employed multiple methods (open-ended and structured retrospective reports and experience-sampling diary records), and involved a community sample of both dating and married couples. Retrospective reports indicated that the extent and direction of role-related differences varied markedly across dependent measures. Further, role differences were moderated by forgiveness, but not relationship status, relationship satisfaction, or event severity. Diary records pointed to the ambiguity inherent in many communication acts as contributing to differing perceptions of hurtful events. Results are discussed in terms of theories of interdependence and self-presentation and in terms of the complex and often ambiguous nature of couples' communication processes.

Development of a clinical and echocardiographic score for assigning risk of major events after exercise and dobutamine echocardiograms

The prognostic value of exercise (EXE) and dobutamine echocardiograms (DbE) has been well defined in large studies. However, while risk is determined by both clinical and echo features, no simple means of combining these data has been defined. We sought to combine these data into risk scores. Methods. At 3 expert centers, 7650 pts underwent standard EXE (n=5211) and DbE (w2439) for evaluation of known or suspected CAD and were followed for up to 10 years (mean 5-2) for major events (death or myocardial infarction). A subgroup of 2953 EXE and 1025 DbE pts was randomly selected to develop separate multivariate models for prediction of events. After simplication of each model for clinical use, models were validated in the remaining EXE and DbE pts. ResuI1s. The total number of events was 200 in the EXE and 225 in the DbE pts, of which 58 and 99 events occurred in the respective testing groups. The following regression equations gave equivalent results I” the testing and validation groups for both EXE and DbE; DbE = (Age’O.02) + (DM’l .O) + (Low RPP’0.6) + ([CHF+lschemia+Scar]‘O.7) EXE = ([DM+CHF]‘O.S) + O.S(lschemla #) + l.B(Scar#) - (METS0.19) (where each categorical variable scored 1 when present and 0 when absent, Ischemia# = 1 for l-2 VD. 6 for 3 VD; Scar# = 1 for 1-2 VD, 1.7 for 3 VD). The table summarizes the scores and equivalent outcomes for EXE and DbE. Conclusions. Risk scores based on clinical and EXE or DbE results may be used to quantify the risk of events during follow-up.