Effectiveness of training interventions to improve quality of medical certification of cause of death: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Valid cause of death data are essential for health policy formation. The quality of medical certification of cause of death (MCCOD) by physicians directly affects the utility of cause of death data for public policy and hospital management. Whilst training in correct certification has been provided for physicians and medical students, the impact of training is often unknown. This study was conducted to systematically review and meta-analyse the effectiveness of training interventions to improve the quality of MCCOD. Methods This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration ID: CRD42020172547) and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases were searched using pre-defined search strategies covering the eligibility criteria. Studies were selected using four screening questions using the Distiller-SR software. Risk of bias assessments were conducted with GRADE recommendations and ROBINS-I criteria for randomised and non-randomised interventions, respectively. Study selection, data extraction and bias assessments were performed independently by two reviewers with a third reviewer to resolve conflicts. Clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity assessments were conducted. Meta-analyses were performed with Review Manager 5.4 software using the ‘generic inverse variance method’ with risk difference as the pooled estimate. A ‘summary of findings’ table was prepared using the ‘GRADEproGDT’ online tool. Sensitivity analyses and narrative synthesis of the findings were also performed. Results After de-duplication, 616 articles were identified and 21 subsequently selected for synthesis of findings; four underwent meta-analysis. The meta-analyses indicated that selected training interventions significantly reduced error rates among participants, with pooled risk differences of 15–33%. Robustness was identified with the sensitivity analyses. The findings of the narrative synthesis were similarly suggestive of favourable outcomes for both physicians and medical trainees. Conclusions Training physicians in correct certification improves the accuracy and policy utility of cause of death data. Investment in MCCOD training activities should be considered as a key component of strategies to improve vital registration systems given the potential of such training to substantially improve the quality of cause of death data.

Effects of paternal alcoholism on the psycho-behavioural outcomes of the offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Even though the graphical interpretations of the Funnel plots did not point towards any major publication bias, its total absence could not be excluded. For more accurate estimation of publication bias, generally inclusion of more than 10 comparisons are recommended (71)(72).…”

A Systematic Approach to Identifying and Developing Implementation Strategies to Support the Uptake of a Risk Tool to Aid in Clinical Management of Patients with Syncope: A Qualitative Study

“…Training is an evidence-based and frequently utilized strategy to build physician capability by increasing their skills (43). This can be operationalized through a variety of mechanisms, including seminars, interactive workshops, and teaching programmes such as simulation, and training sessions (44,45). In our study, participants largely referred to educational meetings (e.g., combined grand rounds inclusive of all relevant specialities) and educational videos.…”

Methodology to Determine Cause of Death for Stillbirths and Neonatal Deaths Using Automated Case Reports and a Cause-of-Death Panel

“…To standardize usage and improve quality of COD determination, all panel members attended an in-depth training workshop to ensure they understood how to interpret the findings presented on the standardized case report [ 14 ]. The workshop included a review of the format and data to be included in the reports with example scenarios and then practice cases.…”