Abstract

BackgroundThe minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) is being investigated as an alternative to the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA), gold standard for CoD determination, in settings where CDA is unfeasible and/or unacceptable. We aimed to explore healthcare providers’ views and perceptions on theoretical and factual acceptability of the CDA and the MIA.MethodsA qualitative study, combining ethnographic and grounded-theory approaches, was conducted within a project aiming to validate the MIA tool against the CDA for CoD investigation. We present data on in-depth and semi-structured interviews of 33 healthcare providers operating within the formal and informal health services in Southern Mozambique. MIA perception was analysed through the theory of diffusion of innovations.ResultsAll participants considered CDA useful for CoD determination. CDA was perceived reliable, but the unpleasant nature of the procedure and its associated infection risk were the main perceived disadvantages. Participants considered the MIA simple, easy and quick to perform; likely to meet families’ expectations to know the CoD, and able to provide evidence-based knowledge for disease management. Concerns were raised on its reliability compared to the CDA. Family's emotional status and accessibility to decision-makers were mentioned as principal barriers for MIA performance. The main jeopardizing factors for MIA implementation were the shortage of required resources and the significant proportion of people dying at home. Key facilitators for MIA acceptance included the need for the support from community and religious leaders, provision of clear information to the community, and accompaniment to bereaved families.ConclusionsHealthcare providers consider the MIAs potentially more acceptable and feasible than CDAs in places where the latter have shown significant implementation challenges. A clear understanding of healthcare provider’s perceived barriers and facilitators for conducting post-mortem procedures in general, and MIAs in particular, will shed light on their future field implementation for more robust mortality surveillance.

Highlights

  • In low and middle-income countries (LMIC), significant challenges exist in order to account for and establish what the main causes of death at the individual and population level are

  • Concerns were raised on its reliability compared to the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA)

  • In sub-Saharan Africa, regional death certificate coverage may be as low as 10%, and the quality of cause of death data remains poor, essentially relying on verbal autopsy and clinical data [1]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In low and middle-income countries (LMIC), significant challenges exist in order to account for and establish what the main causes of death at the individual and population level are. The minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) has been validated as a strong alternative for cause of death determination (CoD) in LMIC where the gold standard method, the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA), is unfeasible to implement [3,4,5,6]. In such countries, CDA can only be performed in top-level health facilities, whereas in the community verbal autopsies are the commonly used method for CoD determination. We aimed to explore healthcare providers’ views and perceptions on theoretical and factual acceptability of the CDA and the MIA.

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call