Nursing and Physiotherapy Department, Faculty of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain.
Nursing and Physiotherapy Department, Faculty of Nursing, University of Cadiz, Algeciras, Spain.
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 14;15(4):e0231311. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231311. eCollection 2020.
To compare and contrast the Classification of Causes of Historical Mortality (CCHM) with the International Classification of Diseases 4th Revision (ICD-4) as methodological elements that can be implemented in historical mortality studies.
We conducted a longitudinal descriptive study of the causes of death in two different localities in Spain, namely, Cadiz and Vejer de la Frontera (1900-1950), to compare the International Classification of Diseases 4th Revision (ICD-4) and the Classification of Causes of Historical Mortality (CCHM). This study proposes the CCHM and its use in statistical analyses of mortality, especially from the mid-19th century to the second half of 20th century. It is a methodological instrument based on the theoretical precepts of Thomas McKeown, expanded through knowledge gained in studies of historical mortality and contrasted with editions of the ICD.
The results showed several differences between the ICD-4 and the CCHM. The ten main causes of death (CoDs) in the CCHM account for 74.3% in Cadiz, compared to 56.6% accounted for by the ICD-4. According to the ICD-4, the number of infectious CoDs exceed the number of noninfectious ones in Cadiz every year. On the other hand, based on the CCHM, we observed that while infectious CoD causes of death predominated over noninfectious ones, there was a change in trend, with noninfectious CoDs predominating the following year. During the interval from 1915 to 1937 in Vejer de la Frontera, there were 12 deaths due to ill-specified causes (ICD-4: 18.200) and 0 due to ill-defined causes (CCHM: 3.0.0.0).
The CCHM accurately determines the differences between infectious and noninfectious causes of death and explains sociodemographic and health-related aspects in the population and its use in employment, illegitimacy or place-of-death studies. Moreover, it has more advantages, such as the incorporation of new diagnostic expressions, and it can be constantly updated, thus facilitating its use over long periods of time.
将分类历史死因（CCHM）与国际疾病分类第 4 版（ICD-4）进行比较和对比，作为可在历史死亡率研究中实施的方法要素。
我们对西班牙两个不同地区（加的斯和韦尔瓦德拉弗隆特拉，1900-1950 年）的死因进行了纵向描述性研究，以比较国际疾病分类第 4 版（ICD-4）和分类历史死因（CCHM）。本研究提出了 CCHM 及其在死亡率统计分析中的应用，特别是从中世纪 19 世纪到 20 世纪后半叶。它是一种方法论工具，基于托马斯·麦克诺恩的理论前提，通过历史死亡率研究获得的知识进行扩展，并与 ICD 的版本进行对比。
ICD-4 和 CCHM 之间存在一些差异。在 CCHM 中，十大主要死因（CoD）在加的斯占 74.3%，而 ICD-4 占 56.6%。根据 ICD-4，每年加的斯的传染性 CoD 数量超过非传染性 CoD。另一方面，根据 CCHM，我们观察到，虽然传染性 CoD 死因占主导地位，但非传染性 CoD 占主导地位，第二年出现了趋势变化。在 1915 年至 1937 年期间，韦尔瓦德拉弗隆特拉有 12 人死于原因不明（ICD-4：18.200），无人死于原因不明（CCHM：3.0.0.0）。
CCHM 准确确定了传染性和非传染性死因之间的差异，并解释了人群的社会人口和健康相关方面及其在就业、非婚生或死亡地点研究中的应用。此外，它具有更多的优势，例如纳入新的诊断表达，并且可以不断更新，从而便于在长时间内使用。
