Abstract
Background The measurement of cause-specific mortality is critical for health system planning but remains a challenge in many low-resource settings due to societal, legal, and logistical barriers. We present a co-development process with community members for the design and implementation of an autopsy program to improve cause of death data in a historically underserved population.
Methods We sought to develop an autopsy program at the Africa Health Research Institute (AHRI) Health and Demographic Surveillance Site (HDSS). The project proposes to obtain consent from families of deceased adults, to perform diagnostic autopsies by a trained pathologist, and to process samples to determine causes of death. Prior to launching the program, we engaged key partners in learning their perspectives about such a program and understanding the landscape of challenges needed for successful implementation. Herein, we describe lessons from interactions with these partners, including 1) the AHRI community advisory board (CAB), 2) the South Africa Department of Health (SA DoH), 3) local traditional authorities, 4) funeral home personnel, 5) traditional healers, and 6) healthcare providers. We also detail the development of community outreach efforts used to inform the public about the program.
Results The partners provided valuable feedback on the study design and informed us of issues that needed to be addressed: community concerns about organ retention and sale (CAB), implications of how autopsy findings could spur litigation and erode trust in healthcare providers who determined alternate causes of death (SA DoH), a cultural practice that conflicts with the autopsy procedure (traditional healers), the need to educate families before they engage with funeral businesses (funeral homes), and enhancing our death referral network through healthcare providers. This led to protocol changes and an adapted community engagement strategy, which included educating healthcare providers, hosting community dialogs, broadcasting radio advertisements, and developing a film to describe autopsy procedures to families considering participation.
Conclusions We present a comprehensive model of partner engagement for a community-based autopsy program in South Africa, leading to the co-development of a program that incorporates local customs around death while promoting buy-in and support from the government, civil society, and medical partners.
Competing Interest Statement
CI received grant funding from Gilead Sciences paid to his Institution for investigator-sponsored research. CI received support from the International Vaccine Institute to attend the Indo-Pacific Climate Resilience Forum. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding Statement
The pathologic autopsy program is funded by the Wellcome Leap Delta Tissue Program. This research was also supported by the Fogarty International Center (D43 TW010543), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (T32 AI007433), and the National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute (K24 HL166024) of the National Institutes of Health. This research and the HDSS are funded in part by Wellcome (Grant number Wellcome Strategic Core award: 201433/Z/16/A) and the DSI-SAMRC South African Population Research Infrastructure Network (SAPRIN). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The contents of this manuscript are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funders. The funders had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study received ethical approval from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BREC) at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (reference: BE290/16). The committee endorsed the publication of our manuscript that reports feedback from stakeholder engagements as it aligns with the approved protocols and enhances the social value of our work, with no further action required from the Principal Investigator to obtain written informed consent before publication. Therefore, written informed consent was not obtained from all stakeholder participants. This approach was approved by the BREC under specific conditions that ensure compliance with ethical standards.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article, as no datasets nor interview guides were generated or analyzed during the current study.
