Civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems play a key role in upholding human rights and generating data for health and good governance. They also can help monitor progress in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Although many countries have made substantial progress in strengthening their CRVS systems, most low- and middle-income countries still have underdeveloped systems. The objective of this systematic review is to identify national policies that can help countries strengthen their systems.
Methods and findings
The ABI/INFORM, Embase, JSTOR, PubMed, and WHO Index Medicus databases were systematically searched for policies to improve birth and/or death registration on 24 January 2017. Global stakeholders were also contacted for relevant grey literature. For the purposes of this review, policies were categorised as supply, demand, incentive, penalty, or combination (i.e., at least two of the preceding policy approaches). Quantitative results on changes in vital event registration rates were presented for individual comparative articles. Qualitative systematic review methodology, including meta-ethnography, was used for qualitative syntheses on operational considerations encompassing acceptability to recipients and staff, human resource requirements, information technology or infrastructure requirements, costs to the health system, unintended effects, facilitators, and barriers. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018085768. Thirty-five articles documenting experience in implementing policies to improve birth and/or death registration were identified. Although 25 countries representing all global regions (Africa, the Americas, Southeast Asia, the Western Pacific, Europe, and the Eastern Mediterranean) were reflected, there were limited countries from the Eastern Mediterranean and Europe regions. Twenty-four articles reported policy effects on birth and/or death registration. Twenty-one of the 24 articles found that the change in registration rate after the policy was positive, with two supply and one penalty articles being the exceptions. The qualitative syntheses identified 15 operational considerations across all policy categories. Human and financial resource requirements were not quantified. The primary limitation of this systematic review was the threat of publication bias wherein many countries may not have documented their experience; this threat is most concerning for policies that had neutral or negative effects.
Our systematic review suggests that combination policy approaches, consisting of at least a supply and demand component, were consistently associated with improved registration rates in different geographical contexts. Operational considerations should be interpreted based on health system, governance, and sociocultural context. More evaluations and research are needed from the Eastern Mediterranean and Europe regions. Further research and evaluation are also needed to estimate the human and financial resource requirements required for different policies.
Why was this study done?
- Civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems generate foundational data for governance across sectors. Within public health, birth and death registrations are critical not only for empowering individuals’ legal rights and for access to services but also in estimating health service needs, coverage, and impact.
- To our knowledge, no formal evidence review and synthesis has characterised which policies work and which do not for strengthening birth and death registration.
What did the researchers do and find?
- We searched five literature databases and contacted global stakeholders to identify policies that improve birth and/or death registration and presented policy quantitative effects and qualitative syntheses.
- We identified 35 articles documenting experience in implementing policies to improve birth and/or death registration from 25 countries representing all global regions.
- Twenty-four articles reported supply, demand, incentive, penalty, or combination (i.e., at least two of the preceding policy approaches) effects on birth and/or death registration.
- Combination policy approaches, consisting of at least a supply and demand component, were consistently associated with improved registration rates across different geographical contexts.
What do these findings mean?
- Countries interested in strengthening their CRVS systems may need to consider a combination of multiple policy approaches based on their health system, governance, and sociocultural context.
- Although this review and synthesis successfully identified many quantitative and qualitative data to strengthen CRVS systems, more policy evaluations and research are needed on effects from the Eastern Mediterranean and Europe regions and on human and financial resource requirements globally.
- Publication bias may have led investigators with neutral or negative findings to not document their findings; further research and evaluation is needed to understand which policies do not work.
Citation: Suthar AB, Khalifa A, Yin S, Wenz K, Ma Fat D, Mills SL, et al. (2019) Evaluation of approaches to strengthen civil registration and vital statistics systems: A systematic review and synthesis of policies in 25 countries. PLoS Med 16(9): e1002929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002929
Academic Editor: Margaret E. Kruk, Harvard University, UNITED STATES
Received: May 28, 2019; Accepted: August 30, 2019; Published: September 27, 2019
This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the primary articles identified as eligible by this systematic review.
Funding: This article has been supported in part by the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the terms of project number CGH2017233 (ABS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: ABS is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine.
Abbreviations: CRVS, civil registration and vital statistics; ICD, International Classification of Diseases; ID, identification card; IDB, Inter-American Development Bank; IT, information technology; SDG, Sustainable Development Goal; WHO, World Health Organization
Civil registration is defined as the continuous, permanent, compulsory, and universal recording of the occurrence and characteristics of vital events in accordance with the legal requirements in each nation . Vital events captured in civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems include the registration of births, deaths (including cause of death), marriages, adoptions, and divorces . Civil registration and supporting legal documentation provide individuals with proof of legal identity, help establish their right to acquire nationality, allow individuals to exercise a broad range of rights, and facilitate access to essential services including social welfare, education, health, and legal protection . Systematic compilation of civil registration data into vital statistics also provides the demographic information necessary for good governance . For example, birth and death data can help monitor population growth and movement and inform fiscal policy. Within the health sector, functioning CRVS systems with a medically certified cause of death both provide an individual with the legal documents they need to access health, inheritance, and legal protection and the country with the data needed to estimate national and subnational burden of disease, the impact of different disease programmes, and the cost-effectiveness of disease interventions . Birth and death registration data are also essential to inform health service needs and coverage. These functions are critical to monitoring progress in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) .
The systematic recording of vital events in many countries remains a serious challenge . In the absence of reliable CRVS data, household surveys have become a key source of data to monitor levels and trends in births, deaths, and other core population indicators [6–9]. In most low- and middle-income countries, such surveys represent the sole source of this information. Unfortunately, many of these data sources are time limited, costly, externally supported, and not always current when published. Surveys also lack the local area CRVS data most effective for local public health planning. Locally developed and sustainable CRVS systems can provide a legal identity from birth, the fundamental documentation to claim a nationality, and generate granular strategic information both to successfully deliver services and improve planning, budgeting, and programming for health and other sectors.
Public health authorities primarily focus on notifying births, deaths, and causes of deaths to the civil authority to enter into the registration system used for decision-making . Global guidelines are useful in establishing CRVS norms and standards for countries. The United Nations Statistics Division provides comprehensive guidance on how CRVS systems can achieve universal coverage, continuity, confidentiality, data quality, and regular dissemination in order to be a dependable and primary source of vital statistics . This guidance also suggests alternative sources and interim methods to generate vital statistics when CRVS systems are underdeveloped . Technical guidance from the United Nations Children’s Fund, World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank Group, and various UN regional offices covers CRVS system strategic planning, legal frameworks, registration practices, birth certification, death certification and cause of death, quality of data according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), interim methods for vital statistics, and how to build political and community support for CRVS systems [10,12,13].
All countries agreed to achieve the SDGs that specify targets related to CRVS, including (1) by 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration, (2) by 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely, and reliable disaggregated data, and (3) by 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries . CRVS systems also contribute to public health SDG targets, such as measuring progress towards ending the epidemics of HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases, reducing maternal and child deaths, and reducing deaths due to noncommunicable diseases and road traffic accidents [14,15]. Although there has been some progress in CRVS system development over the past two decades, birth and death registration rates continue to increase at a slow rate [16–18]. Worldwide, the proportion of children under five with a registered birth increased from 58% in 2000 to 65% in 2015 whilst the proportion of deaths registered increased from 36% to 38% during the same period . In addition to informing national mortality and life expectancy trends, death registration is also critical because it is the first step before determining causes of death. Unfortunately, independent assessments indicate that the majority of registered deaths have issues surrounding the quality of cause-of-death ascertainment . For example, the latest data available from WHO indicate that while an average of 48% of registered deaths included cause of death, 18% of ICD cause-of-death reports used ill-defined ICD codes . Although significant progress was made in evaluating the role of information technology (IT) interventions in CRVS systems, non-technological interventions lack formal reviews and evaluations [22,23]. We systematically reviewed the evidence on national policy interventions to improve birth and death registration.
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using a predefined protocol (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification number, CRD42018085768) [24,25] (S1 and S2 Texts). The ABI/INFORM, Embase, JSTOR, PubMed, and WHO Index Medicus databases were systematically searched without language, publication, or any other limits on 24 January 2017. Given that the Statistical Commission of the United Nations adopted the International Programme for Accelerating the Improvement of Vital Statistics and Civil Registration Systems to assist countries with incomplete registration or entirely lacking a CRVS system in 1991, we included articles implemented and published from 1991 onward . All sources cited in the 2007 and 2015 CRVS Lancet series were reviewed for inclusion [3,19,27–32]. Global stakeholders, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s International Statistics Program, United Nations Children’s Fund, UN Statistics Division, World Bank Group, and WHO, were also contacted to provide relevant publications on CRVS systems and policies.
Eligibility criteria and search strategy
Per recommendations from the PRISMA group, eligibility criteria were based on key article characteristics: population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and design . Specifically, sources were included when (1) they comprised a population eligible for birth and/or death registration, (2) the intervention was a new national policy (i.e., novel legislation or change in programme implementation designed to improve birth and/or death registration), (3) the comparator includes the lack of the new policy, (4) the outcome was birth registration rate, death registration rate, timeliness of birth registration, timeliness of death registration, and/or operational considerations (i.e., acceptability to persons registering births or deaths, acceptability to staff managing and implementing birth or death registration, human resource requirements, costs to the health system, adverse events, and/or facilitators or barriers learnt during implementation), and (5) the article design was a cross-sectional, cohort, case-control, or randomised controlled trial. Articles did not require a minimum time period of follow-up to be eligible. Articles describing operational considerations did not require a comparator arm to be included. The search strategies were designed by a librarian to identify articles that met these eligibility criteria (S3 Text).
Study screening and extraction
Two investigators independently screened titles of all identified articles, followed by screening abstracts from relevant titles. The investigators then matched the full texts of all articles selected during abstract screening against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third investigator. References for included articles were reviewed for additional reports. Articles failing to meet inclusion criteria were excluded from this review. Two investigators completed the data extraction using a standardised extraction form comprising four tables summarising setting, design, quantitative outcomes and results, and operational considerations.
Quantitative and qualitative syntheses
For the purpose of establishing a policy framework for this systematic review, we used the following mechanisms and definitions to guide our categorisation of individual articles: (1) supply (policies focussed on increasing accessibility, acceptability, and/or affordability of registration services), (2) demand (policies focussed on increasing awareness for registration through information, education, communication, and/or advocacy), (3) penalty (policies that penalise citizens for failing to register a birth or death), (4) incentive (policies that encourage citizens to register a birth or death), and (5) combination (a combination of at least two of the preceding policy mechanisms). Given that numerators and denominators were not provided for most quantitative results, data stabilisation, meta-analyses, and heterogeneity assessment could not be performed [33–35]. Instead, we presented individual article results on changes in vital event registration rates during policy implementation. In cases in which multiple articles reported quantitative results on an intervention from the same country, we reported results from the article with the longest period of follow-up.
We used Cochrane qualitative systematic review methodology, including meta-ethnography, to synthesise qualitative data [36–40]. Meta-ethnography involved reciprocal translational analysis (comparison), refutational synthesis (contrast), and line of argument synthesis (high-level synthesis) [41,42]. We developed themes based on quotations from each article. These themes were then categorised into one of our operational considerations: (1) acceptability to staff, (2) human resource requirements, (3) IT or infrastructure requirements, (4) costs to the health system, (5) unintended effects, (6) facilitators, and (7) barriers . For reciprocal translation analysis, we compared similar themes from individual articles and synthesised operational considerations reflective of themes from multiple articles. For refutational synthesis, we contrasted themes and noted disagreements. Line of argument synthesis was used to synthesise operational considerations drawn from combination policy approaches .
We identified 9,880 abstracts through database searches. After we removed duplicates and screened out nonrelevant abstracts, 450 full text articles were assessed for eligibility and 417 were excluded. We identified two additional articles from global stakeholders. In total, 35 articles, published from 1992 to 2016, met the eligibility criteria (Table 1; Fig 1; S1 Table) [44–77]. Articles that reported outcomes for multiple countries were disaggregated by country. In total, 25 countries were represented: 10 countries from Africa, 4 from the Americas, 5 from Southeast Asia, 2 from the Western Pacific, and 4 from Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean (Table 1). Nineteen articles from 15 countries reported experience implementing supply policies [44,47–53,56,59,61,66–68,74–76], one article from Mongolia reported on a demand policy , one article from Canada reported on a penalty , 5 articles from 5 countries reported experience implementing incentive policies [46,54,63,73,77], and 16 articles from 9 countries reported experience implementing a combination of different policies [12,45,55,58,60,62,64,69–73] (Table 1).
Association with birth and death registration rates
Six combination policy articles reported results for birth registration, with all having a positive change in registration rates (Fig 2; S1 Table) [45,55,62,71,73]. One article from Tanzania reported that a supply policy had a negative change on the birth registration rate (Fig 2; S1 Table) . One article reported that Canada’s penalty policy had a negative change in birth registration  (Fig 2; S1 Table). One article from Zimbabwe reported that an incentive policy had a positive change in birth registration (Fig 2; S1 Table) . Two combination policy articles reported results for death registration, with both positively affecting registration rates (Fig 3; S1 Table) [53,59]. Three supply policy articles reported results for death registration, with two positively affecting rates and one negatively affecting the rate (Fig 3; S1 Table) [48,50,76].
Across all policy categories, 15 operational considerations were meta-synthesised (Table 2) from eligible articles (S2 Table). This included nine considerations for supply-side policies, one for incentive policies, two for supply-side and demand-side policies, and three for supply, demand, and incentive combination policies.
This systematic review indicates that new policies have the potential to have positive long-term effects on improving birth and death registration rates. However, there are a variety of considerations needed to interpret these data correctly. For example, an intervention implemented at a subnational scale may face different operational issues and a different direction of effect when implemented nationally. One example of this is use of community-based registration services [47,58,64]. This type of policy would be useful to fill a geographic void in rural settings but may prove redundant in many urban settings. Furthermore, in areas with poor telecommunication platforms and connectivity, mobile registration fills a void; however, in facilities that have computers with connectivity, it may prove redundant .
Although most articles reported effects on registration rates, registration rates should be contextualised as part of CRVS business processes . The business process for death typically encompasses five steps: (1) the death itself, (2) notification of the death to a designated site, (3) registration of the death by the registration authority, (4) assigning the death a cause of death, and (5) including the causes of death in the national vital statistics system. The order of the steps is different for health facility deaths, for which the notification typically includes the cause of death. The business process for birth registration encompasses the first three steps and includes the issuance of the birth certificate. Future policy evaluations should report effects by steps in the business process. This may help countries understand policies’ effects more comprehensively, identify bottlenecks in the registration process, and work towards improving birth and death registration for their context. For example, Kabadi and colleagues reported that both birth and death registration rates declined after implementing a supply policy in Tanzania . However, closer inspection of the data reveals that birth notifications improved 2-fold, while death notifications improved 5-fold with their intervention. The challenge in Tanzania appeared to be translating these increased notifications to registered events.
Universal access to birth and death registration services is important for clients to register vital events. Supply policy interventions consistently increased birth and death registration rates. The one article that showed a negative direction in the registration of births and deaths from Tanzania, discussed above, found increased birth and death notifications that did not translate into increased registration rates . The policy quantitative and operational considerations synthesised should be considered based on the health system, governance, and sociocultural context of contributing articles. For example, fragile and conflict settings may need to consider a supply policy with community-based registration services, whilst settings with a high proportion of births and deaths occurring in health facilities would likely benefit from integration of registration services into health facilities. Moreover, the role of good governance should not be discounted . Despite enabling legislation in several countries, enforcement challenges at the subnational levels led to obstacles for clients [12,46,73]. Across operational considerations, caution should be exercised in interpreting the findings due to the small sample size of articles with qualitative data.
Information, education, communication, and effective advocacy through demand-side policies can help strengthen implementation of functional CRVS systems by social and behavioural change. However, this approach may have limited utility without functional CRVS systems in place. Most articles that reported results of demand policies did so for policies that coupled demand along with other approaches. For example, 15 articles reported on a demand policy coupled with at least supply [12,45,55,58,60,62,64,69,70,72,73]. The single article that reported on a demand-only policy did so in a context, Mongolia, where birth and death registration rates already exceeded 90% . Therefore, the challenge in Mongolia was reaching the remaining few rather than increasing wide-scale access. This underscores the need to interpret the findings based on the health system, governance, and sociocultural context of contributing articles.
Countries took different approaches to utilising incentives for vital event registration, most of which included provision of a national identification card (ID) or certificate that was required for public service(s). Thailand and Botswana integrated national ID provision, which is required for a wide range of government services, with birth registration [72,77]. Ensuring a life cycle of identity, starting with ensuring that every child is registered and issued a birth certificate and ending with recording the cause of death and providing the family with a death certificate, will maximise the full spectrum of rights and data generated by CRVS systems. For example, infants and young children are able to access life-saving medical interventions, including vaccines and access to early childhood education and nutrition services [80,81]. For children and adolescents, a birth certificate is the first line of defense to be protected against child marriage, labour, and recruitment into armed forces. A birth certificate can also provide the legal identity needed for educational exams and to access higher education and the formal job market. For adults, they enable financial inclusion, social assistance, insurance, inheritance, and land rights. In Brazil, a birth certificate was required to enroll into the Bolsa Familia programme, in which a cash transfer was conditioned upon school enrollment . In South Africa, birth certificates were required for child support grants and school enrollment [12,45,60]. Botswana and Bangladesh also require birth certificates for school enrollment [72,73]. Death certificates provide the evidence needed to access inheritance and land rights, often combined with marriage certificates to prove the legal family ties that establish rights to inheritance . This is especially important for women whose access to financial services and property are often through their husband. Death certificate use was more rare; Botswana reported requiring a death certificate for body burial, while Bangladesh reported requiring a death certificate to pass on inheritance [72,73]. There were no articles evaluating direct financial incentives for registering births or deaths.
Due to limited data, it was not possible to conduct subanalyses. If data permitted, analysing effects by the country CRVS functional level would help inform policy categories that are most relevant based on their current CRVS system functional level. For example, any emerging policy to record births or deaths is unlikely to boost the registration rate if the key elements such as legal framework and national ID are not supported by a current policy. Further research is needed to validate these hypotheses. Nonetheless, combination approaches tailored to country context uniformly and consistently improved birth and death registration rates. Fifteen of the sixteen articles reporting on combination approaches included at least a supply and demand element, while six included a supply, demand, and incentive element. South Africa reported positive experiences collaborating with local universities in order to research how best to design supply policy interventions [12,60].
The exclusion of individuals from registering a birth (establishing their legal identity) or obtaining a birth certificate (proof of legal identity) is often an unintended consequence of policy, rather than a deliberate effort by the state to exclude them. For example, laws (1) requiring documentary prerequisites (e.g. ID, birth/marriage certificates), (2) with paternity requirements (i.e. name or presence of the father), and/or (3) that impose fines/fees to discourage late registration may be designed with the intention of legitimising registration documents but can deter or legally even prevent women and the most vulnerable members of society from being included in civil registration systems. This systematic review did not identify evaluations of these types of policy changes.
There may be limitations with this systematic review. First, there is possibility of publication bias because many countries, or regions such as Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean, may not have documented policy interventions. Other countries may have documented changes in registration rates without explaining contributing policy shifts . Finally, policies that did not lead to positive effects may not have been documented at all by their investigators. Knowledge of what does not work is also critical for effective CRVS strengthening in countries. Moreover, given that there was no systematic way to search the grey literature, our grey literature search may have been limited in its sensitivity in the global stakeholders contacted. Including additional global stakeholders, such as the European Union, Plan International, United Nations Population Fund, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as regional stakeholders such as regional development banks, regional economic commissions of the United Nations, and regional technical assistance institutions, may further expand reach. We may have also missed relevant literature that predated our inclusion criteria . Because numerators and denominators for registration were not reported, meta-analysis was not possible. There were several methodological limitations of the studies included. First, given the limited amount of methodological detail provided by eligible articles, it was not possible to ascertain the quality of studies as was planned in the protocol. Second, most eligible studies were included on the basis of their qualitative data and did not have a comparator group to quantify policy effects. Finally, both the design and analytical approach of included quantitative articles limited inferences on causality. This underscores the need to carefully design, monitor, evaluate, and document future CRVS policies.
We identified several gaps in this systematic review. First, more information is needed on financial and human resource requirements for different policies. This information was rarely reported and is critical information required for decision-makers considering national or subnational implementation. Second, many of the articles had a short duration; continued monitoring is needed to understand effects of policies over time. Third, the articles did not provide detail on how migratory populations were registered for births and deaths and whether the findings presented were generalisable to them. Fourth, this systematic review focused on birth and death registration data directly collected from CRVS systems; including whether the policies had effects on additional health outcomes merits further research.
In conclusion, to our knowledge this systematic review provides the first comprehensive compilation of national policies to strengthen birth and death registration. Effective and enforced policies will play a critical role in improving birth and death registration globally. Countries will need to understand their barriers to identify which policy approaches are most appropriate to their context. Further research using a more systematic approach to intervention design and evaluation is needed to improve the knowledge of effects, resource requirements, and acceptability of policies for strengthening CRVS systems.
Disclaimer: The statements in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of their organisations or funding agencies.
S1 Table. Quantitative results of eligible articles.
- 1. United Nations. Principles and Recommendations for a Vital Statistics System 2014 [cited 8 Aug 2017]. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/standmeth/principles/M19Rev3en.pdf.
- 2. United Nations Human Rights Council. Birth registration and the right of everyone to recognition everywhere as a person before the law 2013 [cited 5 Nov 2018]. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/128/19/PDF/G1312819.pdf?OpenElement.
- 3. AbouZahr C, de Savigny D, Mikkelsen L, Setel PW, Lozano R, Lopez AD. Towards universal civil registration and vital statistics systems: the time is now. Lancet. 2015;386(10001):1407–18. pmid:25971217
- 4. United Nations. Population and Vital Statistics Report 2017 [cited 8 Aug 2017]. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/vitstats/Sets/Series_A_2017.pdf.
- 5. The World Bank. Civil Registration and Vital Statistics for Monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals 2017 [cited 12 Jun 2018]. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/979321495190619598/pdf/115150-WP-CRVS-for-Monitoring-the-SDGs-web-version-May-18-2017-PUBLIC.pdf.
- 6. United Nations Children’s Fund. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys 2018 [cited 14 Jun 2018]. http://mics.unicef.org/.
- 7. Mortality GBD, Causes of Death C. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1459–544. pmid:27733281
- 8. Ye Y, Wamukoya M, Ezeh A, Emina JB, Sankoh O. Health and demographic surveillance systems: a step towards full civil registration and vital statistics system in sub-Sahara Africa? BMC Public Health. 2012;12:741. pmid:22950896
- 9. Sankoh O, Byass P. The INDEPTH Network: filling vital gaps in global epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(3):579–88. pmid:22798690
- 10. United Nations Children’s Fund. A passport to protection: a guide to birth registration programming 2003 [cited 14 Jun 2018]. https://www.unicef.org/protection/files/UNICEF_Birth_Registration_Handbook.pdf.
- 11. Principles and Recommendations for a Vital Statistics System. New York: United Nations, Affairs DoEaS; 2014 Contract No.: 19.
- 12. World Health Organization. Strengthening civil registration and vital statistics for births, deaths and causes of death: resource kit 2013 [cited 16 May 2018]. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/78917/9789241504591_eng.pdf.
- 13. The World Bank. Civil Registration and Vital Statistics eLearning Course 2018 [cited 16 May 2018]. https://olc.worldbank.org/content/civil-registration-and-vital-statistics-systems-basic-level-self-paced-format.
- 14. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 2015 [cited 4 Nov 2015]. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.
- 15. Suthar AB, Khalifa A, Joos O, Manders EJ, Abdul-Quader A, Amoyaw F, et al. National health information systems for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e027689. pmid:31101699
- 16. Abouzahr C, Azimi SY, Bersales LGS, Chandramouli C, Hufana L, Khan K, et al. Strengthening civil registration and vital statistics in the Asia-Pacific region: Learning from country experiences. Asia-Pacific Population Journal. 2014;29(1):39–73.
- 17. Every Child’s Birth Right: Inequities and trends in birth registration. New York: United Nations Childrens Fund, 2013.
- 18. Muzzi M. UNICEF Good practices in integrating birth registraiton into health systems (2000–2009), Case Studies: Bandladesh, Brazil, the Gambia and Delhi, India. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2009.
- 19. Mikkelsen L, Phillips DE, AbouZahr C, Setel PW, de Savigny D, Lozano R, et al. A global assessment of civil registration and vital statistics systems: monitoring data quality and progress. Lancet. 2015;386(10001):1395–406. pmid:25971218
- 20. Phillips DE, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Atkinson C, Gonzalez-Medina D, Mikkelsen L, et al. A composite metric for assessing data on mortality and causes of death: the vital statistics performance index. Population Health Metrics. 2014;12(14).
- 21. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2017: Monitoring Health for the SDGs. 2017.
- 22. Move it: Report on Monitoring of Vital Events using Information Technology. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2013.
- 23. Systematic review of eCRVS and mCRVS interventions in low and middle income countries. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2013.
- 24. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34. pmid:19631507
- 25. Suthar AB. Towards universal civil registration and vital statistics systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis of policies to improve birth and death registration 2017 [cited 12 Jun 2018]. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/85768_PROTOCOL_20180110.pdf.
- 26. United Nations. International Programme for Accelerating the Improvement of Vital Statistics and Civil Registration Systems. In: Office UNS, editor. New York, New York, USA1989.
- 27. Phillips DE, AbouZahr C, Lopez AD, Mikkelsen L, de Savigny D, Lozano R, et al. Are well functioning civil registration and vital statistics systems associated with better health outcomes? Lancet. 2015;386(10001):1386–94. pmid:25971222
- 28. AbouZahr C, de Savigny D, Mikkelsen L, Setel PW, Lozano R, Nichols E, et al. Civil registration and vital statistics: progress in the data revolution for counting and accountability. Lancet. 2015;386(10001):1373–85. pmid:25971224
- 29. Mahapatra P, Shibuya K, Lopez AD, Coullare F, Notzon FC, Rao C, et al. Civil registration systems and vital statistics: successes and missed opportunities. Lancet. 2007;370(9599):1653–63. pmid:18029006
- 30. Hill K, Lopez AD, Shibuya K, Jha P, Monitoring of Vital E. Interim measures for meeting needs for health sector data: births, deaths, and causes of death. Lancet. 2007;370(9600):1726–35. pmid:18029005
- 31. Setel PW, Macfarlane SB, Szreter S, Mikkelsen L, Jha P, Stout S, et al. A scandal of invisibility: making everyone count by counting everyone. Lancet. 2007;370(9598):1569–77. pmid:17992727
- 32. AbouZahr C, Cleland J, Coullare F, Macfarlane SB, Notzon FC, Setel P, et al. The way forward. Lancet. 2007;370(9601):1791–9. pmid:18029003
- 33. Freeman MF, Tukey JW. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1950;21(4):607–11.
- 34. Cooper H, Hedges L. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation; 1994.
- 35. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. pmid:12111919
- 36. Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K, Booth A. Chapter 20: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews 2011.
- 37. Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:21. pmid:18416812
- 38. Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(4):209–15. pmid:12425780
- 39. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45. pmid:18616818
- 40. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York, USA: Springer; 2007.
- 41. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of health services research & policy. 2005;10(1):45–53.
- 42. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC medical research methodology. 2009;9:59. pmid:19671152
- 43. Noblit G, Hare R. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. California, USA: Sage; 1988.
- 44. Modi D, Patel J, Desai S, Shah P. Accessing completeness of pregnancy, delivery, and death registration by Accredited Social Health Activists [ASHA] in an innovative mHealth project in the tribal areas of Gujarat: A cross-sectional study. Journal of postgraduate medicine. 2016;62(3):170–2. pmid:27241808
- 45. Garenne M, Collinson MA, Kabudula CW, Gomez-Olive FX, Kahn K, Tollman S. Completeness of birth and death registration in a rural area of South Africa: the Agincourt health and demographic surveillance, 1992–2014. Glob Health Action. 2016;9:32795. pmid:27782873
- 46. Duff P, Kusumaningrum S, Stark L. Barriers to birth registration in Indonesia. The Lancet Global health. 2016;4(4):e234–5. pmid:27013307
- 47. Silva R, Amouzou A, Munos M, Marsh A, Hazel E, Victora C, et al. Can Community Health Workers Report Accurately on Births and Deaths? Results of Field Assessments in Ethiopia, Malawi and Mali. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1):e0144662. pmid:26731544
- 48. Dababneh F, Nichols EK, Asad M, Haddad Y, Notzon F, Anderson R. Improving mortality data in Jordan: a 10 year review. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93(10):727–31. pmid:26600615
- 49. Tripp JS, Duncan JD, Finch L, Huff SM. Completing Death Certificates from an EMR: Analysis of a Novel Public-Private Partnership. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings AMIA Symposium. 2015;2015:1214–23. pmid:26958261
- 50. Ozdemir R, Rao C, Ocek Z, Dinc Horasan G. Reliable mortality statistics for Turkey: Are we there yet? BMC public health. 2015;15:545. pmid:26058703
- 51. Kabengele Mpinga E, Delley V, Jeannot E, Cohen J, Chastonay P, Wilson DM. Testing an unconventional mortality information source in the canton of Geneva Switzerland. Global journal of health science. 2013;6(1):1–8. pmid:24373259
- 52. Singogo E, Kanike E, van Lettow M, Cataldo F, Zachariah R, Bissell K, et al. Village registers for vital registration in rural Malawi. Tropical medicine & international health: TM & IH. 2013;18(8):1021–4.
- 53. Joubert J, Rao C, Bradshaw D, Vos T, Lopez AD. Evaluating the quality of national mortality statistics from civil registration in South Africa, 1997–2007. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e64592. pmid:23724066
- 54. Robertson L, Mushati P, Eaton JW, Dumba L, Mavise G, Makoni J, et al. Effects of unconditional and conditional cash transfers on child health and development in Zimbabwe: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9874):1283–92. pmid:23453283
- 55. Fagernas S, Odame J. Birth registration and access to health care: an assessment of Ghana’s campaign success. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(6):459–64. pmid:24052683
- 56. Curioso WH, Pardo K, Loayza M. [Transforming the Peruvian birth information system]. Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica. 2013;30(2):303–7. pmid:23949519
- 57. Lhamsuren K, Choijiljav T, Budbazar E, Vanchinkhuu S, Blanc DC, Grundy J. Taking action on the social determinants of health: improving health access for the urban poor in Mongolia. International journal for equity in health. 2012;11:15. pmid:22429615
- 58. Prata N, Gerdts C, Gessessew A. An innovative approach to measuring maternal mortality at the community level in low-resource settings using mid-level providers: a feasibility study in Tigray, Ethiopia. Reproductive health matters. 2012;20(39):196–204. pmid:22789098
- 59. Singh PK, Kaur M, Jaswal N, Kumar R. Impact of policy initiatives on civil registration system in haryana. Indian journal of community medicine: official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine. 2012;37(2):122–5.
- 60. Upham S, Mikkelsen L. Advocacy for strengthening civil registration and vital statistics. Pacific health dialog. 2012;18(1):41–52. pmid:23240337
- 61. Toivanen H, Hyvönen J, Wevelsiep M, Metsäniemi M. Mobile birth registration in Liberia: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland; 2011 [cited 17 May 2018]. https://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/workingpapers/2011/W159.pdf.
- 62. Mony P, Sankar K, Thomas T, Vaz M. Strengthening of local vital events registration: lessons learnt from a voluntary sector initiative in a district in southern India. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89(5):379–84. pmid:21556306
- 63. Hunter W, Sugiyama NB, editors. Documenting citizenship: contemporary efforts toward social inclusion in Brazil. American Political Science Association Annual Meeting; 2011; Seattle, USA.
- 64. Ohemeng-Dapaah S, Pronyk P, Akosa E, Nemser B, Kanter AS. Combining vital events registration, verbal autopsy and electronic medical records in rural Ghana for improved health services delivery. Studies in health technology and informatics. 2010;160(Pt 1):416–20. pmid:20841720
- 65. Woodward GL, Bienefeld MK, Ardal S. Under-reporting of live births in Ontario: 1991–1997. Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique. 2003;94(6):463–7. pmid:14700248
- 66. Lu TH, Janes CR, Lee MC, Chou MC, Shih TP. High-frequency death certifiers in Taiwan: a sociocultural product. Social science & medicine. 2002;55(9):1663–9.
- 67. Starr P, Starr S. Reinventing vital statistics. The impact of changes in information technology, welfare policy, and health care. Public health reports. 1995;110(5):534–44. pmid:7480607
- 68. Prybylski D, Alto WA, Rogers S, Pickering H. Measurement of child mortality in association with a multipurpose birth certificate programme in the Southern Highlands Province of Papua New Guinea. Journal of biosocial science. 1992;24(4):527–37. pmid:1429780
- 69. Inter-American Development Bank. Democratic Governance, Citizenship, and Legal Identity: Linking Theoretical Discussion and Operational Reality 2009 [cited 17 May 2018]. https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/4300.
- 70. Rao C, Bradshaw D, Mathers CD. Improving death registration and statistics in developing countries: Lessons from sub-Saharan Africa. Southern African Journal of Demography. 2004;9(2):81–99.
- 71. United Nations Children’s Fund. Case Studies on UNICEF Programming in Child Protection 2013 [cited 17 May 2018]. https://www.unicef.org/protection/files/CP_Case_Studies_Final.pdf.
- 72. The World Bank. Integration of civil registration and vital statistics and identity management systems: Botswana success story 2015 [cited 17 May 2018]. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/963541495179518711/Botswana-Integration-of-civil-registration-and-vital-statistics-and-identity-management-systems-Botswana-success-story.
- 73. United Nations Children’s Fund. UNICEF good practices in integrating birth registration into health systems (2000–2009) 2010 [cited 17 May 2018]. http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Birth_Registration_Working_Paper.pdf.
- 74. Gadabu OJ, Manjomo RC, Mwakilama SG, Douglas GP, Harries AD, Moyo C, et al. An electronic register for vital registration in a rural village with no electricity in Malawi. Public health action. 2014;4(3):145–9. pmid:26400800
- 75. Skiri H, Kumbaro MT, Abelsæth A, Opdahl S, Brunborg H, Roll-Hansen D. How to modernise a Civil Registration System: The case of Albania: Statistics Norway; 2012 [cited 17 May 2018]. https://www.ssb.no/a/english/publikasjoner/pdf/doc_201232_en/doc_201232_en.pdf.
- 76. Kabadi G, Mwanyika H, de Savigny D. Innovations in monitoring vital events: Mobile phone SMS support to improve coverage of birth and death registration: The University of Queensland; 2013 [cited 17 May 2018]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18410813.pdf.
- 77. Tangcharoensathien V, Limwattananon S, Patcharanarumol W, Thammatacharee J. Monitoring and evaluating progress towards Universal Health Coverage in Thailand. PLoS Med. 2014;11(9):e1001726. pmid:25243409
- 78. Cobos Munoz D, Abouzahr C, de Savigny D. The ‘Ten CRVS Milestones’ framework for understanding Civil Registration and Vital Statistics systems. BMJ global health. 2018;3(2):e000673. pmid:29607102
- 79. The World Bank. World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law 2017 [cited 10 Jun 2018]. http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017.
- 80. Inter-American Development Bank. Birth registration: the key to social inclusion in Latin America and the Caribbean. 2013.
- 81. World Bank. Incentives for improving birth registration coverage: a review of the literature 2018 [cited 6 Sep 2018]. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/928651518545413868/Incentives-and-Birth-Registration030518.pdf.
- 82. Khosravi A, Taylor R, Naghavi M, Lopez AD. Mortality in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1964–2004. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85(8):607–14. pmid:17768519
- 83. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Institute for Vital Registration and Statistics Reports 2018 [cited 17 May 2018]. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/isp/isp_iivrs.htm.