Stevens J Dalton, Landes Scott D
Department of Sociology and Aging Studies Institute, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, USA.
Prev Med Rep. 2021 Jan 4;21:101309. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101309. eCollection 2021 Mar.
This study utilized a convergent mixed-methods design to examine whether variation in death certificate certifier type predicts the accuracy of cause of death reporting in the US. We analyzed the content of state statutes, amendments, and policies concerning cause of death signature authority in 2005-2017 to create the Cause of Death Signature Authority (CoDSA) database. After merging the CoDSA data with 2005-2017 National Vital Statistics System Multiple Cause of Death Mortality files for adults with cerebral palsy (CP) ( = 29,996), we employed logistic regression models to determine the likelihood that different certifier groups made one particular type of death certification error - inaccurately reporting CP as the underlying cause of death (UCOD). The content analysis provided evidence of significant liberalization of cause of death signature authority, with 23 states expanding signature authority to include physician extenders. Logistic regression analysis revealed differences in UCOD accuracy based on certifier type. Compared to medical examiners, the likelihood of CP being reported as the UCOD, was: 41% higher (CI 1.12, 1.78) for coroners; 25% higher (1.05, 1.49) for mixed-system death investigators; 24% higher (1.08, 1.42) for physicians; and 16% higher (1.00, 1.34) for physician extenders. Inaccuracies limit public health efforts aimed at improving the health and longevity for disadvantaged populations, such as people with CP. Poor performance among cause of death certifiers may indicate systemic problems with death certification that should be addressed with more robust training for all professional groups with signature authority.
本研究采用了一种收敛性混合方法设计,以检验死亡证明开具者类型的差异是否能预测美国死亡原因报告的准确性。我们分析了2005年至2017年期间关于死亡原因签名权限的州法规、修正案和政策内容,以创建死亡原因签名权限(CoDSA)数据库。将CoDSA数据与2005年至2017年国家生命统计系统中脑瘫(CP)成人的多死因死亡率文件(n = 29,996)合并后,我们使用逻辑回归模型来确定不同开具者群体做出一种特定类型死亡认证错误的可能性,即不准确地将CP报告为根本死因(UCOD)。内容分析提供了死亡原因签名权限显著放宽的证据,有23个州扩大了签名权限,将医生助理包括在内。逻辑回归分析揭示了基于开具者类型的UCOD准确性差异。与法医相比,将CP报告为UCOD的可能性分别为:验尸官高41%(CI 1.12, 1.78);混合系统死亡调查员高25%(1.05, 1.49);医生高24%(1.08, 1.42);医生助理高16%(1.00, 1.34)。不准确的报告限制了旨在改善弱势群体(如CP患者)健康和寿命的公共卫生努力。死亡原因开具者的表现不佳可能表明死亡认证存在系统性问题,应对所有具有签名权限的专业群体进行更有力的培训来解决这一问题。