India’s Civil Registration System: a potentially viable data source for reliable subnational mortality measurement

INTRODUCTION

Mortality measures by age, sex and cause are essential inputs for population health assessment, health policy, and research. Civil registration and vital statistics systems (CRVS) based on medical certification of causes of death are the optimal data source given their legal mandate for total coverage, and design characteristics that potentially assure timeliness and data quality.(1) In particular, the size and dispersion of population in a large country such as India creates the critical need for robust mortality and health measurements at state and even district level. For monitoring progress towards the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (UNSDGs), information on numbers of deaths and death rates from important conditions including tuberculosis, heart diseases, diabetes, cancers, maternal and child health conditions, and road traffic accidents, among others are required each year.(2) These data are required to quantify major health problems, plan and implement health services, monitor their impact, and guide research priorities to reduce deaths and hence improve the health of the population.(3)

The current Civil Registration System (CRS) in India is implemented by the Office of the Registrar General of India (ORGI) housed in the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.(4) In anticipation of the long lead time for CRS development as a reliable source for vital statistics, the government of India established a nationally representative Sample Registration System (SRS) in 1970, as an interim population-based data source. In its current form, the SRS operates in 8861 sample units, and covers about 0.5% of the national population, in which births and deaths are continuously recorded by local registrars, with established follow up procedures for quality control and ascertainment of causes of death.(5) Over time, the SRS has served as the optimal data source for estimating mortality indicators for India, principally due to its assurance of high levels of completeness of death registration.(6) Also, since 2001, the SRS uses formal verbal autopsy (VA) methods for ascertaining causes of death.(7) Data from the SRS has been recently used by two different research groups to estimate national and state level cause-specific mortality patterns, using statistical methods to fill gaps arising from limitations with quality of VA recorded causes of death.(8, 9) However, differences in estimation methodology have resulted in considerable variations between the two mortality estimates, and hence limiting their direct utility of either set of estimates for health policy and evaluation. Such data uncertainty underscores the overall limitations of the SRS for cause-specific mortality estimation in India, even at national level.

Under these circumstances, the CRS could serve as a viable source of mortality statistics at national and subnational level, given its universal coverage and other quality assurance elements described elsewhere.(10) In brief, the CRS is based on a comprehensive legal framework, and is implemented in decentralised model through a multi-sectoral network of registration units across urban and rural areas. The system design demonstrates availability of registration infrastructure across the country, uniform operating procedures, established processes for compilation and submission of vital statistics, and routine practices for monitoring performance and data analysis. Annual CRS reports over the past decade indicate a steady improvement in reporting coverage and completeness of death registration.(11)

This article describes findings from a detailed evaluation of the quality of data from the CRS, in terms of reporting coverage, completeness of death registration, and quality of medical certification of cause of death. Where applicable, similar measures from the SRS were used as reference values to evaluate reliability and plausibility of age-sex variations in CRS death registration, both at national and state level for India’s large states. The findings were used to infer the comparative utility of data from the two sources for mortality measurement at sub national level, and to make recommendations for further development of the CRS into a viable source of vital statistics for India.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

The two principal data sources used for this analysis are the annual CRS and SRS vital statistics reports for 2017.(11, 12) The data quality evaluation presents an in depth analysis of reporting coverage, estimated completeness of death registration, and comparative analysis of estimated summary measures of mortality from the two sources, derived from national and state level life tables by age and sex. The evaluation also presents a summary of the information reporting cascade of data from the Medical Certification of Cause of Death (MCCD) Scheme, which is a component of the CRS for registration of deaths attended by physicians.

Reporting coverage of the CRS was extracted from the annual report for 2017, along with data on total population, total numbers of registered deaths, and proportions of delayed registration beyond 1 year from the date of death. The completeness of death registration in the CRS was computed and compared across two methods. The first method, used by the Office of the Registrar General of India (termed as the ORGI method) applied the SRS observed crude death rate in 2017 for each state to the state population estimate for 2017, to estimate the expected deaths that would have occurred in 2017. Completeness was calculated for each state as the proportion of observed CRS 2017 deaths out of these expected deaths.(13) The second completeness estimate was derived from the Adair-Lopez model, which estimates death registration completeness as a function of its relationship with the registered crude death rate, the registered under-five mortality rate, and proportion of individuals aged above 65 years in the study population.(14) The models for these relationships were developed using population and mortality rates from 2451 country years of vital registration data. These input parameters were derived by sex for each state from CRS data for 2017, and used as inputs in the Adair-Lopez model to estimate national and state level completeness by sex.

Life tables for India and all 36 States/UTs were computed from the CRS 2017 data, and for 22 States with larger populations from the SRS data for 2017.(15) The key inputs for life table analyses are population and death distributions by sex and age categories from each data source. For the SRS life tables, these distributions were computed using data from the SRS annual report which contains the following information for each state:

1. total sample population (16)

2. detailed proportionate population distributions by age ((<1 year, 1-4 years, 5-9, 10-14….80-84, 85+) for each sex (17)

3. age-specific death rates according to the same age groups (18)

Subsequently, the state specific SRS population distributions were applied total state population estimates for 2017 to derive age-sex populations as inputs for CRS life tables. Also, the SRS detailed death distributions by age were used to interpolate the coarser age-groups of CRS reported deaths (<1 year, 1-4 years, 5-14, 15-24….55-64, 65-69, 70+) for each state, to derive detailed age-sex numbers of CRS deaths.(19) Detailed age distributions of deaths from Madhya Pradesh were used to interpolate death distributions for Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh, for which the CRS only reported total numbers of deaths for males and females. For the 14 smaller States/UTs, SRS population and death distributions from neighbouring larger states were used to interpolate CRS age-sex distributions of population and deaths. These detailed population and death distributions according to identical categories from each source were then analysed to compute sex specific life tables for India and states for 2017. Summary life table outputs used for comparisons between CRS and SR included life expectancy at birth and probabilities of dying by sex from each source at national/state level across following age groups:

1. birth to 5 years to represent childhood mortality

2. 5 to 14 years to represent school age mortality

3. 15 – 29 years to represent mortality during adolescence and young adulthood

4. 30 to 69 years to represent premature adult mortality

5. 70 to 85 years to represent mortality among the elderly

The variance for each mortality measure from the CRS was calculated according to the Chiang II method, which was incorporated into the spreadsheet calculation tool.(20) The variance of SRS mortality measures was also estimated using the Chiang II method, since cluster-specific death counts were not available for the 8850 sample units of the SRS, hence non-parametric methods could not be applied to estimate variance.(21)

For in-depth understanding the influence of age-specific death registration completeness on the total completeness measures reporting in Table 1 for each state, heat maps were generated to show the ratio of mortality risks between the CRS and SRS by age group for each sex. The SRS measures were used as the reference standard, given its known high levels of completeness of death registration. Ratios were colour coded to reflect lower or higher death recording by the CRS in comparison to the SRS, for the same-age sex group. To understand the impact of precision of mortality estimates from either source on their potential utility for population health assessment and health policy, bar charts were developed to compare risks of premature adult mortality (between 30 and 69 years) along with estimated 95% confidence intervals. Charts were developed separately for males and females, to show mortality risk comparisons between CRS and SRS for states with reported risks that were higher than the national risk estimate from the SRS.

Finally, to evaluate the quality of data on causes of death from the CRS, a descriptive table of the performance of the Medical Certification of Cause of Death Scheme was developed. The table shows for each state the cascade of cause of death reporting under this scheme, starting with the number of accredited hospitals, the number of hospitals covered by the MCCD regulations, the institutions that submitted annual reports in 2017, the eventual proportions of registered deaths in each state that were medically certified as to cause, and the proportions of these certified deaths that were assigned non-specific conditions as underlying causes of death. The table also reports an estimate of the proportion of SRS deaths recorded in 2017 that received some form of medical attention at death, from either a government or private hospital.(22) This statistic indicates the proportion of deaths for which there is a likelihood of obtaining some medical inputs into the likely condition(s) that could have caused the death.

RESULTS

Summary mortality measures

Table 2 shows summary mortality measures from the two sources at national and state level. We first compared estimated life expectancies at birth, and found that CRS life expectancies for males and females are less than or equal to those from the SRS in Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Given that all these states have very high levels of CRS death registration completeness, this indicates that the SRS is potentially under estimating mortality in these states. The CRS life expectancies for males are within a 1 year margin of the SRS levels including Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab and Rajasthan. However, CRS female life expectancies in these states are considerably higher that SRS levels, suggestive of under reporting of female deaths in the CRS.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 2:

National and subnational summary measures of mortality for 2017 fom the Civil Registration and Sample Registration Systems in India

All other states with data from both sources show higher CRS life expectancies for both males and females, which indicate lower death recording in the CRS as compared to that in SRS sites in these states. Further, the CRS life expectancy estimates are implausibly high (>75 years in males, and >80 years in females) for the states where comparison measures from the SRS are not available, including Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Manipur and Nagaland, and the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Daman and Diu. On the other hand, the lower life expectancies and high age-specific mortality risks observed in the Union Territories of Chandigarh, Delhi and Puducherry are a reflection of the practice of death registration at place of occurrence. The CRS data for these locations include deaths that occur in individuals from neighbouring states who seek terminal medical care in the advanced tertiary hospitals in these cities, hence inflating the numerators for calculating mortality indicators. Life tables could not be computed for Lakshadweep owing to low numbers of population and registered deaths by age and sex.

Table 2 also shows the estimated probabilities of dying by sex and age from the two data sources. As mentioned previously, the SRS death probabilities by sex and age are routinely used for mortality estimation for India and States, given their reputed reliability. In summary, they demonstrate considerable inter-state variations in mortality patterns. For instance, there is a five-fold difference in risk of child mortality, ranging from 13 per 1000 in Kerala to about 65 per 1000 risk in Uttar Pradesh, for male and female children together. There is similar variation in adult mortality risks across states along with considerable gender differentials, ranging between 289 and 464 per 1000 population in males, and between 190 and 365 per 1000 in females.

We used the SRS death probabilities as reference values to compute the ratios of completeness of CRS sex and age specific death probabilities (see Figures 1 and 2). Ratios less than 1 are indicative of under-reporting by the CRS, and ratios above 1 indicative higher mortality recording by the CRS. As can be seen, there is general under-reporting of childhood mortality in the CRS across all states, with ratios less than 0.5 in about three-fourths of states. On the other hand, the probability ratios show higher level of CRS death recording at adult ages (30 to 69 years) in most states, but particularly so for males. Even the states of Assam, Madhya Pradesh and Telangana which very low levels of overall completeness (<80%) show high death probability ratios at ages 30 to 69 years, in both males and females. Similarly, the states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and West Bengal have low completeness levels (80-90%), but show ratios of more than 1 at these ages, but for males only. Several states also demonstrate higher CRS death recording among the elderly. In general, the female death probability ratios are less than 1 in categories for ages above 15 years in many of the states, indicative of a general under reporting of adult female deaths in the CRS.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Ratios of age-category probabilities of death in males from CRS and SRS by state in 2017

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Ratios of female age-category probabilities of death from CRS and SRS by state in 2017

Figures 3 and 4 show the differentials between CRS and SRS death probabilities at ages 30 to 69 years, for states with CRS measures that are higher than the SRS. The 95% confidence intervals also display the influence of limited size of the SRS sample, in terms of the low precision of the estimates. The graphs clearly suggest that the SRS appears to be grossly under-estimating adult mortality risks in many states in both sexes. For males, 15 states show higher CRS death probabilities, with statistically significant differences in 10 of these states. In females, the differences are statistically significant in 6 out of 10 states with higher CRS death probabilities. As mentioned before, the SRS variance measures do not account for cluster specific death count variations, since these data were not available. Measurement of this additional error would further widen the 95% confidence intervals for the SRS estimates, and accentuate the already low levels of precision in SRS age-specific mortality risks. This would further limit the utility of the SRS estimates for understanding levels, trends and differentials across the states. On the other hand, the very narrow 95% confidence intervals for CRS mortality risks for all states suggest that the CRS sample sizes are likely to be adequate for reasonably precise measurement of these indicators even at district level.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Comparisons of risk of dying between 30 and 69 years from CRS and SRS for males in India and selected states, 2017

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4: Comparisons of risk of dying between 30 and 69 years from CRS and SRS for females in India and selected states, 2017

DISCUSSION

Reliable measurement of cause-specific mortality is among the first principles of evidence-based population health policy, along with descriptive analyses of major health problems, and assessments of facilities and human resources available for health service delivery. For India, there is an imperative need for reliable mortality data to measure key UNSDG and related international health indicators at state level, and in some cases, even at district level. The analyses presented here establish several important facts about the status of current mortality statistics programs in India, and provide a scientific basis for specific interventions to improve data quality to meet these needs.

An important preliminary finding is that the SRS is clearly inadequate for measuring sex-age specific mortality indicators at state level in India. In particular, the SRS under estimates mortality risks for ages between 30 to 69 years in several states, and this is a cause of concern, given the need for accurate mortality measurement in this age group to address the burden from non-communicable diseases (24) This is coupled with the poor levels of precision of these indicators from the SRS as seen in Figure 3 and 4, arising from grossly insufficient sample size, which precludes the reliable assessment of mortality differentials across states or over time. On the other hand, the Civil Registration System provides a distinct advantage in terms of precision, owing to the enhanced effect of total population coverage of the system, which eliminates sampling error. Moreover, the very high levels of reporting coverage coupled with high estimated completeness for most states as reported in Table 2 effectively support an inference of better precision and reliability of CRS measures of adult mortality. Even for states with lower levels of estimated completeness, the large numbers of registered deaths suggest the potential for some districts within these states to have better levels of completeness (>85%), which would enable more reliable estimation of adult mortality for these districts. From a health policy perspective, the higher than expected levels of adult mortality observed from CRS data indicate a greater need for health systems strengthening for programs to control non-communicable disease and other major causes of adult deaths in India.(25)

At the same time, it should also be noted that the CRS data could be biased on account of delayed registration, arising from deaths that actually occurred in previous years being registered and counted as deaths in 2017. This information is not available for all states (see Table 1) and hence could not be estimated at national level. However, these proportions are relatively low for most states which provided these data, and similar trends in delayed registration are observed from previous annual CRS reports during 2014-2016, resulting in a similar carry-over of deaths from year to year. Hence, we believe that these factors minimise the potential for bias from delayed registration on CRS mortality measures for 2017.

From an administrative standpoint, Table 2 demonstrates the huge scope and magnitude of CRS operations in India, as inferred from the availability of infrastructure deployed across 284,671 primary registration units, which implement standardised operations for death registration, despite the heterogeneity of structure and design at state and local level.(10) This is combined with apparently efficient processes for management and compilation of registration data in most states, resulting in timely reporting and dissemination of vital statistics within 18-20 months of the reference period. Even through the estimated coverage of the MCCD Scheme is low, annually over 1.4 million deaths are registered with a medically certified cause. Reporting of MCCD data from all states is indicative of the presence of local capacity across the country, and hence potential for decentralised scaling up of system strengthening interventions.

Despite these structural advantages, there are several key limitations of both registration and statistical operations in the CRS. For instance, it is clearly evident that there is under-reporting of child deaths. One potential reason could be the length of the reporting period for birth registration, which is 21 days. Since the majority of infant deaths occur within the first three weeks, this limits the likelihood of bereaved families to report both the birth and death. For this reason, an alternate reporting model could be developed, through involvement of health sector institutions and staff in active notification of infant deaths. There is also a need to conduct social science research to investigate factors for the apparently lower levels of female death registration in most states. Next, mortality measures are not reliable for states with reporting coverage and/or estimated completeness levels which are less than 80%. These states would require a detailed assessment of the design, resources, management and operations of the CRS at state level, according to a standard international framework for such assessments.(26) Where feasible, a thorough evaluation of district level mortality indicators should be undertaken according to the methodology reported here, to identify nodes that require specific attention through system strengthening interventions.

A third key limitation lies in the performance of the MCCD Scheme, ranging from low reporting coverage of hospitals to low quality of reported causes of death. To address reporting coverage, the Registrar-General of India has issued instructions in 2014 to extend the MCCD Scheme to cover all government, private, and not-for-profit medical institutions across the country, including a special note to maintain updated lists of such medical institutions in each state.(27) A targeted initiative is required to implement these instructions and close this performance gap, through close monitoring of MCCD reporting in all states, supported by teaching programs to strengthen quality of cause of death certification.(28) To improve the overall quality of cause attribution at death registration, there is also an urgent need to implement verbal autopsy methods for home deaths without medical attention. As demonstrated by the SRS, as well as its precedence in the erstwhile ORGI Survey of Cause of Death Scheme in Rural areas (SCD-Rural) which operated during 1965-1999, there is considerable experience in using VA methods across India.(4, 7) In particular, the SCD-Rural Scheme demonstrated a viable working collaboration between the administration and health sectors at the level of the Primary Health Centre (PHC). Each PHC serves an average of 25,000 population, with about 150-200 deaths each year. Considering that about 20% of these deaths would have a medically certified cause, this would leave the PHC staff with a VA workload of about 2-3 cases per week which appears logistically feasible, when shared across sub centres. This PHC based model for rural areas could be combined with a strategy for using VA for deaths occurring without medical attention in urban areas.

From a broader perspective, these VA activities should be embedded within a broader CRS strengthening initiative which also includes activities to improve registration completeness, medical certification, and data management and analysis for local empirical mortality measurement, starting with representative samples of districts from each state.(29, 30) Such an initiative would be well within the scope of the recent ORGI instructions to strengthen infant death recording, closely monitor registration levels and calculate vital rates at state and district level commencing from 2018. These instructions include a justification that CRS data are ‘exact and real data certified by registering authorities and are therefore legally admissible’ for such calculations.(31)

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the analyses presented in this article clearly demonstrate that India’s Civil Registration System has major strengths in infrastructure, reporting coverage, data completeness and management. In several states, these strengths also translate into more reliable CRS based adult mortality risks than those from the SRS, hence establishing reliable mortality baseline measures for monitoring non-communicable disease mortality at state and district level in India. Looking forward, there appears to be sufficient political will and support for further reforms to strengthen local registration and statistical operations as well as medical certification of causes of death, in the form of recent government regulations on these subjects. All these observations indicate that with appropriately designed system strengthening initiatives, the Indian CRS could be able to serve its goal as a reliable source for national and sub national vital statistics in the near future.