Estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community derived disability weights for snake bite in Kerala: a study protocol

Jaideep C. Menon; Denny John; Geeta R. Menon; Joseph K. Joseph; P. Rakesh Suseela; VV Pillay

doi:10.12688/f1000research.50970.1

Home Browse Estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community derived...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community derived disability weights for snake bite in Kerala: a study protocol

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Jaideep C. Menon ^1,2, Denny John², Geeta R. Menon³, Joseph K. Joseph⁴, P. Rakesh Suseela², VV Pillay⁵

Jaideep C. Menon ^1,2, Denny John², [...] Geeta R. Menon³, Joseph K. Joseph⁴, P. Rakesh Suseela², VV Pillay⁵

PUBLISHED 01 Mar 2021

Author details Author details

¹ Cardiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, 682041, India
² Public health, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, 682041, India
³ Biostatistics, National Institute of Medical Statistics, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, Delhi, 110029, India
⁴ Nephrology, Little Flower hospital and Research centre, Angamaly, Kerala, 683572, India
⁵ Poison Care Centre, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, 682041, India

Jaideep C. Menon
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Denny John
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Geeta R. Menon
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Joseph K. Joseph
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

P. Rakesh Suseela
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

VV Pillay
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Neglected Tropical Diseases collection.

Abstract

Background: In India, geographical variation, lack of data and underreporting on cases and deaths due to snakebite makes it difficult to estimate socio-economic burden of snakebites. Previous studies measuring economic burden of snakebite in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) using different approaches have been conducted, but none so far in India. The proposed study aims to provide evidence on disability weights, epidemiological and economic burden due to snakebites in Kerala state, India.
Protocol: A cross-sectional community based study for estimating epidemiological and economic burden of snakebite, recruiting victims of snakebite occurring over a nine month period prior to start and over the three month period of the study, across Ernakulam district, Kerala state, India. For the community derived disability weights, 60 adult patients admitted and treated at Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi or Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly would be interviewed. The sample size to determine the mortality rate is calculated at 108,458 persons in Ernakulam.The study will measure annual incidence, mortality, treatment cost of snakebites along with community-derived disability weights for snakebites. Standard methods for analysis and reporting of mortality, morbidity, years of lives lost, years lived with disability, disability weights, and costs of treatment will be calculated and presented. The study will be started in March 2021 and is expected to be completed by June 2021.
Discussion: This protocol is the first published for estimating epidemiological, economic burden and community derived disability weights for snakebites in India. Besides, the Global Burden of Disease has not attached a particular disability weight to snakebite and this would be an attempt to do so.The protocol has been developed using guidelines for both cross-sectional studies and for conducting community derived disability weights. The evidence generated will contribute to knowledge regarding epidemiology, economic burden and community-derived disability weights for snakebites in India and other LMICs.

Keywords

snakebite, epidemiology, economic burden, disability weight, DALY

Corresponding author: Jaideep C. Menon

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This study is funded by Hamish Ogston Foundation (UK) as a part of their small educational grants.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2021 Menon JC et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Menon JC, John D, Menon GR et al. Estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community derived disability weights for snake bite in Kerala: a study protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021, 10:167 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.50970.1) First published: 01 Mar 2021, 10:167 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.50970.1) Latest published: 11 Jun 2021, 10:167 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.50970.2)

Abbreviations

ASHA; Accredited Social Health Activist

CMO: Chief Medical Officer

DALY: Disability-adjusted life years

DW: Disability Weights

DMO: District Medical Officer

DPM: District Programme Management

GBD: Global Burden of Disease

NHM: National Health Mission

VAS: Visual Analogue Scale

YLD: Years lived with disability

YLL: Years of lives lost

Introduction

Snakebite is a major public health problem in the rural communities of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and most neglected among all the neglected tropical diseases. Many studies on the bio-medical perspectives of snakebite exist but very few studies have been conducted from a socio-economic viewpoint¹. Global estimates ofsnakebite range from 4.5 million to 5.4 million annually with an estimated 2 million of them in India, with tremendous socioeconomic consequences². As per the Registrar General of India-Million Death Study (RGI-MDS), the number of deaths due to venomous snakebite in India is 46,900 per year³. Reports suggest that only 20–30% victims of snakebite in rural India seek treatment in hospitals⁴. A recent update of the MDS suggests that the number of deaths are higher still at 58,000 per year⁵.

The geographical variation, lack of data and underreporting on cases of snakebites and deaths makeit difficult to estimate socio-economic burden of snakebite in India. Few studies have provided data on mortality, cause of death , hospital based case series (in Maharashtra, West Bengal, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh states), compensations paid to snakebite victims and socio-economic impact^6–14.

Along with mortality, snakebite may lead to physical and psychological impairment, scarring, permanent residual disability, blindness, malignant ulcers, pregnancy loss and of productivity following hospitalisation and incapacitation¹⁵. The Disability Adjusted-Life Years (DALYs) is a widely used metric for quantifying disease burden¹⁶. One DALY is equal to one lost year of healthy life. The sum of the DALYs for all diseases, across all age groups and either gender is a measure of the gap between current health status and an ideal health situation where the entire population lives to an advanced age, free of disease and disability.

Previous studies measuring economic burden of snakebites in low and middle income countries have used different approaches for estimating DALYs for snakebites. Kasturiratne et al. (2017), in measuring economic burden of snakebites in Sri Lanka, used disability weights for poisoning from the 2013 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study as a surrogate¹⁷. The duration of an episode of snakebite with envenoming was considered to be 0.3 years. For snakebite without envenoming disability weight of 0.006 (lower estimate) and 0.108 (higher estimate) were used; the higher estimate being a surrogate for open wounds as per the GBD study. The duration of illness of snakebite without envenoming was considered to be 0.04 years. Habib et al. (2015) used a meta-analytic approach to project annual epidemiological burden of snakebite envenoming in sub-Saharan Africa using pooled rates of incidence, amputation, and mortality rates¹⁸. These estimates were applied to sub-Saharan population for deriving estimates of mortality and amputations. The standard loss functions based on projected frontier period life expectancy at birth for Japan and South Africa in the year 2050 estimated at 91.9 years (undiscounted) minus the mean age at the time of envenoming was used to calculate years of lives lost (YLL). Years lived with disability (YLD) were estimated by multiplying the number of amputations by the respective disability weight of 0.13 and applying this disability weight for the remainder of undiscounted local life expectancy. In Nigeria, Habib et al. (2015) used cost per DALY averted to measure the cost-effectiveness of antivenoms for snakebite envenoming¹⁹. The study used associated amputation-related disability weight of 0.12.

This proposed study aims to address some of these issues by conducting a retrospective incidence study to provide evidence on disability weights, epidemiological and socio-economic burden due to snakebites in Kerala state, India.

The study will be conducted in Ernakulam district of Kerala to provide a state specific estimate on incidence, mortality, pattern of injuries, treatment seeking behaviour and cost of illness among snakebite victims. Additionally, the study will conduct a health state valuation to account for societal perspectives in estimating disability weights for snakebites.

Rationale for the study

There is lack of data and underreporting on cases of snakebites and deaths that makes it difficult to estimate socio-economic burden of snakebite in India. Disability-weights (DWs) are values obtained from an individual’s perception of health states. It is to be noted that Global Burden of Disease (GBD) disability weights are not universal in nature as social and cultural contexts of health states were not accounted for in the GBD process²⁰. This is mainly because the GBD valuers generally, were educated professionals either from medical or health fields and could easily participate in the cognitively demanding valuation methods^20–25. Although of late GBD and numerous other studies started including the general population along with professionals as participants, these studies were unable to capture the community-level perception of individual health states thus eliciting over-or-under-estimation of health states^20,26–31.

It is envisaged that the derived DWs from this proposed studyalong with the epidemiological and economic burden estimations, would be useful for future researchers and policymakers in the country to guide further research and policy in management of snakebites in the country.

Aim and objectives

The aim of this study is to estimate the epidemiological and socio-economic burden and community-derived disability weights due to snakebites in Kerala state, India.

Primary objectives

1. To determine the prevalence, morbidity and mortality due to snakebite in Ernakulam district of Kerala state, India.

2. To determine the economic burden due to snakebites in the community.

3. To determine the community-derived disability weights for snakebites.

Methods

Study design

A cross-sectional study involving adult populations for estimating epidemiological and economic burden of snakebite will be conducted. These adults will be recruited over a total period of 12 months, 9 months prior to start of study and the 3 months of the study duration across various Gram Panchayats in Ernakulam district, Kerala state. For the community-derived disability weights, 60 adult patients admitted in the three months prior to start of data collection at either of Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences (AIMS), Kochi Hospital or Little Flowers Hospital (LF), Angamaly would be interviewed. The study will be started in March 2021 and is expected to be completed by June 2021.

Study geography

Ernakulam district, with an area of 3063 sq. km, has a population of 3.47 million. Industry and service sectors are the main sources of occupation in the urban areas with agriculture being so in the eastern part of the district. Export oriented fishing industry is also a major source of revenue and occupation towards the coast.

Study participants

Epidemiological and economic burden. Victims and family members, identified by community health workers (ASHAs), with a history of snakebite in the preceding 12 months will be included for the socio-demographic and economic costsaspect of the study.

Community-derived disability weights. The victims interviewed would include individuals who received treatment for snakebite either as an out or inpatient in the immediate nine months preceding the date of start of the study. The victims would include those identified at the community level by ASHA workers in addition to patients admitted and treated for snakebite within the three months of study duration in hospitals in the district treating snakebite. Victims thus identified from in-patient records of treating hospitals would be included, if residents of Ernakulam district. The length of hospital stay of individual patients would be accessed from both hospital records of patients admitted within the three month period of study and copies of discharge records of victims identified from community screening by ASHA workers.

For our study we will be using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) to valuate health states on a continuous graduated line segment, one end labelled as ‘death’ and the other labelled as ‘perfect health’ ranging from 0 to 100. The VAS allows the user to rate a particular health state between the mentioned anchor points, i.e. death and perfect health.

For the study component related to disability weights, victims admitted and treated for snakebite at AIMS, Kochi or Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly over the three month period prior to the start of study would be interviewed. Additionally, victims with a history of snakebite in the preceding nine months would also be interviewed for the epidemiologic and economic burden components of the study and prospectively so in victims admitted in the two afore-mentioned hospitals over the study period of three months.

Symptoms related to poisoning other than due to snakebite or non-ophid bites and those not willing to provide consent will be excluded.

Sample size calculation

Epidemiological and economic burden. For estimating the epidemiological and economic burden, a population-level epidemiological study will be conducted covering all gram panchayats (n= 82) in Ernakulam district of Kerala state, India, using a pre-specified questionnaire to capture demographic characteristics (area of residence, age, gender, education, household income etc), details of snakebite (envenomation, site, wound type), treatment (hospitalisation, outpatient, investigations), outcomes (number of days of hospitalisation, death) and costs (outpatient, investigations, hospitalisation, funeral). Based on the estimated population and households in a previous Sri Lankan study³², taking the prevalence of snakebite as 153 per 100,000 population (0.15%), the estimated sample size is 5868 with a precision of 0.1% from a population of 3.47 million residents³². Assuming 15% cases being unreported, a total of 6904 will need to be interviewed to identify 11 cases of snakebites. Since the mortality of snakebites is estimated at 6/100,000, the sample size to estimate a mortality of 0.006% is 92,190 persons. Assuming a 15% loss of information the actual sample size, to determine the mortality rate is 108,458 persons in Ernakulam.

n = \frac{(Z^{2}) P (1 - P)}{d^{2}}

Z_1-a/2 = Is standard normal variate [at 5% type 1 error (P<0.05) it is 1.96]. p = Expected proportion in population based on previous studies or pilot studies.

d = Absolute error or precision

Community derived disability weights. The interviews will be conducted using a purposive sampling method and the VAS would be administered in about 60 adults currently admitted in AIMS and LF hospitals or admitted three months prior to data collection.

Outcomes

The study will measure annual incidence, mortality, and treatment costs of snakebites in Ernakulam district of Kerala state, India. Additionally, the study will also calculate community-derived disability weights for snakebites in the district.

Statistical analysis

Epidemiological components. Population based incidence rates will be calculated using the “Survey” package in R programming language. Individual level variables (e.g. age, sex) will be considered only for descriptive analysis. The explanatory variables for snakebite incidence will include population density, sex, occupation, education, and income. The categorical variables will be presented in the form of frequencies and percentages and the continuous variables will be presented as means and standard deviations.

Incidence risk = \frac{Number of incident cases of snakebites in the time period X 100,000}{Population at risk}

Mortality risk = \frac{Number of deaths in the time period X 100,000}{Population at risk}

Case-fatality rate = \frac{Number of deaths from snakebites in the time period X 100,000}{Number of new cases of snakebites in the time period}

Cost of treatment. The median out-of-pocket cost of different cost elements (direct medical and non-medical and indirect) will be estimated based on the data reported by the victims or a household member.

Health state valuation. For the health valuation descriptive statistics of the socio-demographic profile of the valuers will be presented using appropriate summary statistics—number with percentage for categorical variables and median with inter-quartile range for quantitative variables. The mean of the VAS scores for each disease sequelae will be calculated. The computation of DWs will be done using the formula: DW = 1 –VAS /100³³. 95% Confidence Intervals will be provided for the DWs.

Disability adjusted life years (DALYs). DALYs for a disease or health condition is a combined metric of mortality and morbidity/disability and can be used to compare the disease burden across different countries or across different time periods for the same country. The mortality component is estimated in terms of YLL due to premature mortality, and the morbidity component is defined by the YLD due to that condition or any of its sequelae. DALYs is the sum of YLLs + YLDs³⁴. All the three metrics are defined for a particular health condition, for a pre-specified population whose age and sex wise population distribution, death/ mortality distribution, cause specific mortality distribution and life expectancy is known. The YLLs are then computed as the sum over all ages of the product of number of deaths at a particular age multiplied by the standard life expectancy at that age $(YLL= \sum_{x = 1}^{n} N_{x} L_{x})$ where N_x= number of deaths at age x, L_x= standard life expectancy in years at age x and x varies from 0 to n where n is the maximum years for which the population death data is available. YLDs for a particular cause (e.g. snakebite) in a particular time period, is calculated using the number of incident cases in that period multiplied by the average duration of the disease and the weight factor that reflects the severity of the disease from scale from 0 (perfect health) to 1 (death).

YLDs will be calculated using the incidence approach where YLD=I × DW × L, where I = number of incident cases, DW= disability weight, L= average duration of the case until recovery or death (years).

Data collection, quality checks and monitoring

The study would be facilitated through the offices of the District Program Manager, National Health Mission and the Chief/District Medical Officer of Ernakulam district.

Informed consent from all participants will be conducted prior to administration of any data collection questionnaire (Extended data: Annexure 1³⁵). A pre-specified questionnaire developed for the research study will be used to collect data regarding socio-demographic, hospitalisation, and economic details (Extended data: Annexure 2³⁵). The questionnaire has been developed after consultation with experts working in the field of snakebites in the country, and discussion among authors. The interview schedule for valuation will have two sections: (1) socio-demographic profile of valuer, (2) ‘own health state’ valuation using VAS (Extended data: Annexure 3³⁵). Both these schedules will be pre-tested among 5-6 participants prior to any finalisation and administration to the entire sample.

However, for information related to any family member whose age is below 18 years, the mother or the father shall be interviewed. Information about the victim, profile of envenomation and complications thereof, other related characteristics, treatment outcome and any other related details will be noted but kept coded and confidential.

Data entry and storage

Data entry will be conducted by a single data entry operator atthe research unit of AIMS. One of the co-authors will review the data entry to check for any discrepancies including any data entry errors from the data entry form. The data will be stored in a desktop computer with access to the data entry operator, and Principal Investigator (JCM). Once the data entry is completed and cleaned, the data sheet will be transferred to the laptops of the co-authors (JCM, GRM & DJ) for further analysis. After analysis these data sheets will be destroyed in these laptops and the data sheet would be available only with the desktop present at research unit of AIMS.

Data gathered at the Panchayat (village) level would be collated on a Tab PC by the field officers from where it would be synced on to the server at AIMS, accessible only to JCM,DJ and GRM. De-identified details would be used for statistical analysis and reporting. Details gathered would not be shared on any public domain and would be kept confidential.

Ethical approval

Participants will be informed about the nature of the study and will be assured that privacy will be maintained, and information provided by the respondent will be held confidentially and only be used for research purposes. Their willingness to participate will be sought and informed written consent will be taken before including them in the study. Social and cultural values of the participants will be respected and considered as needed. Information obtained during research will not be used for any other purpose except research and research findings will be disseminated as per research dissemination ethics.

The study received ethics approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi (study reference number IRB-AIMS-2020-1 01) on 13/03/2020.

Study challenges

Snakebite is generally a disease of the working community, being most common among farmers, rubber tappers, tea/coffee estate pickers, brick kiln workers, and plywood industry workers. The majority of bites are accidents, which occur at the workplace or at home with the lower socio-economic groups being most affected. The degree of education and comprehension of the VAS could be a challenge in this group of individuals. There could be a recall bias in victims bitten close to a year back on degree of disability and other disease details as well.

Distribution of study results

The study results will be submitted to a suitable peer-review publication within 6#six months of study completion. Additionally, the results will also be presented in suitable national/international conferences based on resources available for participation. The study results will be presented using STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies.

Study status

The study protocol was discussed and agreed by Steering Group members (clinicians from Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences (AIMS), Kochi Hospital or Little Flowers Hospital (LF), Angamaly handling patients affected with snakebite) prior to start of data collection.

Training session of staff who would be administering the VAS score has been completed and the necessary permission for using frontline health workers in identifying victims of snakebite in the community has been secured from the District Program Manager of the National Health Mission’s office, and we expect to start the field work form the 1^st March 2021.

Conclusion

This research constitutes the first published protocol for estimating epidemiological and economic burden as also community derived disability weights. The protocol has been developed using guidelines for cross-sectional studies, and international guidelines for conducting community-derived disability weights. The findings of the study will be useful to inform researchers for a proposed extension of the study in other states as part of ICMR-funded study to be initiated in 2021 (five of the authors are also investigators on this study). The evidence generated by this study will contribute significantly to knowledge regarding the epidemiology, economic burdenand community-derived disability weights for snakebite in India and other countries where incidence of snakebite is high.

Data availability

Underlying data

No underlying data is associated with this article.

Extended data

Figshare: Estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community derived disability weights for snakebite in Kerala: A study protocol, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14061215.v1³⁵

This project contains the following extended data:

Annexure 1. Consent Form
Annexure 2. Questionnaire
Annexure 3. VAS tool

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Kasturiratne A, Wickremasinghe AR, De Silva N, et al.: The Global Burden of snakebite: a literature analysis and modelling based on regional estimates of envenoming and deaths. PLoS Med. 2008; 5(11): e218. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. www.who.int/snakebite/epidemiology/en/. Accessed on 10 January 2021.
3. Mohapatra B, Warrell DA, Suraweera W, et al.: Snakebite Mortality in India: A Nationally Representative Mortality Survey. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011; 5(4): e1018. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Majumder D, Sinha A, Bhattacharya SK, et al.: Epidemiological profile of snake bite in south 24 Parganas district of West Bengal with focus on underreporting of snake bite deaths. Indian J Public Health. 2014; 58(1): 17–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Suraweera W, Warrell D, Whitaker R, et al.: Trends in snakebite deaths in India from 2000 to 2019 in a nationally representative mortality study. Elife. 2020; 9: e54076. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Sarkhel S, Ghosh R, Mana K, et al.: A hospital based epidemiological study of snakebite in Paschim Medinipur district, West Bengal, India. Toxicol Rep. 2017; 4: 415–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Menon JC, Joseph JK, Whitaker RE: Venomous Snake Bite in India - Why do 50,000 Indians Die Every Year? J Assoc Physicians India. 2017; 65(8): 78–81. PubMed Abstract
8. Jayanthi GP, Gowda TV: Geographical variation in India in the composition and lethal potency of Russell’s viper (Viperarusselli) venom. Toxicon. 1988; 26(3): 257–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Prasad NB, Uma B, Bhatt SK, et al.: Comparative characterisation of Russell’s viper (Daboia/Viperarusselli) venoms from different regions of the Indian peninsula. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999; 1428(2–3): 121–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Shashidharamurthy R, Jagadeesha DK, Girish KS, et al.: Variations in biochemical and pharmacological properties of Indian cobra (Naja naja naja) venom due to geographical distribution. Mol Cell Biochem. 2002; 229(1–2): 93–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Sharma M, Gogoi N, Dhananjaya BL, et al.: Geographical variation of Indian Russell’s viper venom and neutralization of its coagulopathy by polyvalent anti-venom. Toxins Reviews. 2014; 33: 1–2, 7–15. Publisher Full Text
12. Dandona R, Kumar GA, Kharyal A, et al.: Mortality due to snakebite and other venomous animals in the Indian state of Bihar: Findings from a representative mortality study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(6): e0198900. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Vaiyapuri S, Vaiyapuri R, Ashokan R, et al.: Snakebite and its socio-economic Impact on the rural population of Tamil Nadu, India. PLoS One. 2013; 8(11): e80090. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Roshnath R, Kunhiraman E, Rajan CV: Incidence of snakebite and corresponding compensation payments in the Kannur district of Kerala, India. Herpetol Bull. 2018; 26–29. Reference Source
15. Fatalities from Venomous Animals: Australian Venom Research Unit, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Accessed on 17 December 2020. Reference Source
16. Anand S, Hanson K: Disability-adjusted life years: A critical review. J Health Econ. 1997; 16(6): 685–702. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Kasturiratne A, Pathmeswaran A, Wickremasinghe AR, et al.: The socio-economic burden of snakebite in Sri Lanka. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017; 11(7): e0005647. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Habib AG, Kuznik A, Hamza M, et al.: Snakebite is Under Appreciated: Appraisal of Burden from West Africa. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015; 9(9): e0004088. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Habib AG, Lamorde M, Dalhata MM, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of antivenoms for snakebite envenoming in Nigeria. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015; 9(1): e3381. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Sommerfeld J, Baltussen RMPM, Metz L, et al.: Determinants of variance in health state valuations. In Summary Measures of Population Health Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications. 2002. Reference Source
21. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, et al.: Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984; 4(3): 315–29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Nord E: Uncertainties about disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease study. Lancet Glob Health. 2015; 3(11): e661–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Lai T, Habicht J, Kiivet RA: Measuring burden of disease in Estonia to support public health policy. Eur J Public Health. 2009; 19(5): 541–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M: Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000; 17(2): 151–65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Stouthard MEA, Essink-Bot M, Bonsel G, et al.: Disability Weights for Diseases in the Netherlands. 1997; 1–67. (accessed September 4, 2017). Reference Source
26. Sung YT, Wu JSL: The Visual Analogue Scale for Rating, Ranking and Paired-Comparison (VAS-RRP): a new technique for psychological measurement. Behav Res Methods. 2018; 50(4): 1694–715. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Neethling I, Jelsma J, Ramma L, et al.: Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study? Glob Health Action. 2016; 9: 31754. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Salomon JA, Vos T, Hogan DR, et al.: Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012; 380(9859): 2129–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Haagsma JA, Maertens de Noordhout C, Polinder S, et al.: Assessing disability weights based on the responses of 30,660 people from four European countries. Popul Health Metr. 2015; 13: 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Sackett DL, Torrance GW: The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis. 1978; 31(11): 697–704. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Gudex C, Dolan P, Kind P, et al.: Health state valuations from the general public using the visual analogue scale. Qual Life Res. 1996; 5(6): 521–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Edireweera DS, Kasturiratne A, Pathmeswaran A, et al.: Mapping the risk of Snakebite in Sri Lanka- A national survey with geo-spatial analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016; 10(7): e0004813. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
33. Lobo E, Nanda L, Akhouri SS, et al.: Describing the Development of a Health State Valuation Protocol to Obtain Community-Derived Disability Weights. Front Public Health. 2019; 7: 276. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
34. Mathers C, Vos T, Lopez E, et al.: National Burden of Diseases Studies; A Practical Guide. Geneva: 2001. Reference Source
35. John D, Menon J: Estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community derived disability weights for snakebite in Kerala: A study protocol. figshare. Dataset. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14061215.v1

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 01 Mar 2021

Author details Author details

Jaideep C. Menon
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Denny John
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Geeta R. Menon
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Joseph K. Joseph
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

P. Rakesh Suseela
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

VV Pillay
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This study is funded by Hamish Ogston Foundation (UK) as a part of their small educational grants.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 11 Jun 2021, 10:167

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.50970.2

version 1

Published: 01 Mar 2021, 10:167

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.50970.1

© 2021 Menon JC et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Menon JC, John D, Menon GR et al. Estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community derived disability weights for snake bite in Kerala: a study protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021, 10:167 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.50970.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 01 Mar 2021

Views

Reviewer Report 06 Apr 2021

Louis Wihelmus Niessen, Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.54070.r81325

The study protocol describe the various sub-studies needed to estimate the health and economic burden from snakebite in Kerala, conform the global BOD approach. There are 1) hospital-based study including patients with a present snakebite or a history of snakebite, 2) a district level community study in all panchayats, target about 9000 inhabitants to identify and track people who had a recent snakebite. The study is very useful and timely for the India situation and globally in the NTD discussions. Some descriptions of some methods are not very clearly (see three points below). The additional minor points (see further below) can be addressed relatively easily.

To be addressed:

I would recommend a patient inclusion flow diagram. The exact number of hospital patients to be included is not clear nor the expected number per panchayat. It is unclear how hospital patients with a history of snakebite are identified and included for an interview in addition to the 62 presenting patients. It is unclear if at the community level what the sample framework is (sample 108,458 or 6904 persons? Percentage of total panchayat population?). Will there be an attempt to identify the missing fatal cases in the past, through registries or verbal autopsies? Any limitations to recall bias to take into account?
A DALY approach is proposed, yet, in spite of the many DALY refs, it is unclear how conform this will be to the international (Seattle-based) standards, especially the way disability-weights are established, like is done in other countries, through professionals and, possibly, at community levels. Only a (clinical) VAS approach is proposed, which is used in QALYs computations, using EuroQol versions. Presently, this sounds like quite a mixed bag. Perhaps this can be added in a better narrative in a Box. Will there be controls i.e. health matches? How will the findings be validated / compared against the present BOD weights? Against other India studies?
How is snakebite short-term and long-term morbidity defined? In clinical terms? How are the VAS and clinical data reconciled, statistically?

Minor points

How are data queries handled?
Is there a quality assurance process, collecting data at the community and/or at the hospital? How?
Is the a specific pilot / testing protocol / field training on the use of VAS in illiterate participants?
Can one add a scored STROBE check list, please?
What are the challenges of generalisability? How are findings extrapolated at Kerala / all India level (as state 'country')?
What kind of costing is taking place? Perspective? Time horizon? Which checklist is used? CHEERS?
Some wording needs to be improved like in the Abstract: 'methods are calculated and presented'.
Can the actual guidelines used for the BOD analysis and the community disability weights be added?
Is EuroQol approval needed for use of the VAS?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: health economics and epidemiology in particular burden of disease methods and clinical studies.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 09 Jul 2021

Jaideep Menon, Cardiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, 682041, India

09 Jul 2021

Author Response

Dr Louis Niessen
The study protocol describes the various sub-studies needed to estimate the health and economic burden from snakebite in Kerala, conform the global BOD approach. There are 1) ... Continue reading Dr Louis Niessen
The study protocol describes the various sub-studies needed to estimate the health and economic burden from snakebite in Kerala, conform the global BOD approach. There are 1) hospital-based study including patients with a present snakebite or a history of snakebite, 2) a district level community study in all panchayats, target about 9000 inhabitants to identify and track people who had a recent snakebite. The study is very useful and timely for the India situation and globally in the NTD discussions. Some descriptions of some methods are not very clearly (see three points below). The additional minor points (see further below) can be addressed relatively easily.
To be addressed:
1.            I would recommend a patient inclusion flow diagram. The exact number of hospital patients to be included is not clear nor the expected number per panchayat. It is unclear how hospital patients with a history of snakebite are identified and included for an interview in addition to the 62 presenting patients. It is unclear if at the community level what the sample framework is (sample 108,458 or 6904 persons? Percentage of total panchayat population?). Will there be an attempt to identify the missing fatal cases in the past, through registries or verbal autopsies? Any limitations to recall bias to take into account?
Response: We have now included a patient inclusion flow diagram to provide an overview of the patients included for the study. The hospitalised patients will be sub-set of the population survey however they will be subjected to EQ-6D-3L and VAS in addition to other details as mentioned in Annexure 3. The total sample in the population for the epidemiological component is 108,458 persons representing 3.18% of the total population of Ernakulam district. Our studies uses ASHAs who are attached to each Gram Panchayat to report the episodes related to snakebites, and has regular interaction with the community. Due to long collaborations of working with ASHAs by JCM in Ernakulam district it is assumed that ASHAs will have knowledge of snakebite victims in each Gram Panchayat based on questioning with villagers. We will not be able to corroborate any missing cases with registries as data for 2018 year on causes of death is only available in February 2021. We do not aim to use verbal autopsy methods as snakebite is an easily reported event due to the circumstantial and symptomatic evidence as gathered from the community/family member as well as treating clinician.
2.            A DALY approach is proposed, yet, in spite of the many DALY refs, it is unclear how conform this will be to the international (Seattle-based) standards, especially the way disability-weights are established, like is done in other countries, through professionals and, possibly, at community levels. Only a (clinical) VAS approach is proposed, which is used in QALYs computations, using EuroQol versions. Presently, this sounds like quite a mixed bag. Perhaps this can be added in a better narrative in a Box. Will there be controls i.e. health matches? How will the findings be validated / compared against the present BOD weights? Against other India studies?

Response: We have revised the protocol to the use of EQ-6D-3L approach using modified card sorting method to visualise the entire description of health states. The modified CS process using EQ-6D-3L which has been validated in previous studies in Indian settings will not only act as a validation tool but also as a ‘warm-up” for the entire valuation exercises. Our use of EQ-6D-3L is is also due to the fact that other techniques such as Standard Gamble,TTO, PTO, patient elicitation and DCE are complicated to administer among rural and semi-literature populations. There are other studies that have used EQ-6D-3L (Lobo et.al. 2019; Mahpatra et. al., 2000) hence our findings will be validated against these studies published previously. We will not be using any healthy controls as this is not the focus of current study, and might be something to be conducted in future. We have also used pictorial diagrams to be used in vignettes of EQ-6D-3L component so that the valuers can visualize the entire description of health states.
3.            How is snakebite short-term and long-term morbidity defined? In clinical terms? How are the VAS and clinical data reconciled, statistically?
We are using 1-month period as short-term morbidity and long-term morbidity between 1-3 months duration. We will be capturing clinical data of patients on whom VAS will be administered and will use severity as per definition used in our study using standard statistical methods
Minor points
•             How are data queries handled?
Any data queries will be handled by a data access committee, the details are now mentioned in the revised manuscript.
•             Is there a quality assurance process, collecting data at the community and/or at the hospital? How?
Quality checks of Annexure 1 will be conducted by JCM on 1% of total sampled patients to corroborate data collection collected by field officers. For hospitalised cases, JKJ or VVP will reconduct among sample of patients (5% of patients) for validation of responses. In case the differences of EQ-6D-3L or VAS scores are substantial then the choice of scores will be used based on discussions with JCM, JKJ or VVP and will be arrived through consensus.
•            Is the a specific pilot / testing protocol / field training on the use of VAS in illiterate participants?
Both the questionnaires used in the study will be pre-tested among 5-6 participants prior to any finalisation and administration to the entire sample.

•             Can one add a scored STROBE check list, please?
STROBE checklists are used for reporting of studies hence we have not provided scores as part of the protocol. We have also added the use of cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report economic components of the study.
•             What are the challenges of generalisability? How are findings extrapolated at Kerala / all India level (as state 'country')?
Our study methods and findings will be adapted after any suitable modifications to the ICMR-funded national study that JCM is PI and other members are Co-PIs. We will also be repeating the community derived disability weights methods in other states for generalisability of findings from our study to other states.
•            What kind of costing is taking place? Perspective? Time horizon? Which checklist is used? CHEERS?
We will be using an expenditure method to derive cost of treatment and indirect cost to calculate economic costs (i.e. a prevalence approach of cost of illness method). This will be conducted using a societal perspective with a time horizon to a maximum of 12 months prior to data collection. We will be using a questionnaire to capture the resources used for treatment along with costs. Additionally costs of funeral and any subsidy through government insurance and any other means will also be captured. We will use cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report our study findings.
•             Some wording needs to be improved like in the Abstract: 'methods are calculated and presented'.
Abstract has been revised suitably.
•            Can the actual guidelines used for the BOD analysis and the community disability weights be added?
We have mentioned use of Vignettes and EQ-6D-3L description system along with DW calculations mentioned. The methods for calculating DW mentioned in our study has been used in previous studies in Indian settings.
•            Is EuroQol approval needed for use of the VAS?
No.
In addition Dr Amitava Banerjee (UCL) a long-term GBD collaborator in onboard the study team to help navigate the GBD part of the study.
•             Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
•             Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes

•             Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
•             Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
We have presented the datasets in an online repository available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14061215.v1
________________________________________
Competing Interests
No competing interests were disclosed.
________________________________________
Reviewer Expertise
health economics and epidemiology in particular burden of disease methods and clinical studies.
Dr Louis Niessen
The study protocol describes the various sub-studies needed to estimate the health and economic burden from snakebite in Kerala, conform the global BOD approach. There are 1) hospital-based study including patients with a present snakebite or a history of snakebite, 2) a district level community study in all panchayats, target about 9000 inhabitants to identify and track people who had a recent snakebite. The study is very useful and timely for the India situation and globally in the NTD discussions. Some descriptions of some methods are not very clearly (see three points below). The additional minor points (see further below) can be addressed relatively easily.
To be addressed:
1.            I would recommend a patient inclusion flow diagram. The exact number of hospital patients to be included is not clear nor the expected number per panchayat. It is unclear how hospital patients with a history of snakebite are identified and included for an interview in addition to the 62 presenting patients. It is unclear if at the community level what the sample framework is (sample 108,458 or 6904 persons? Percentage of total panchayat population?). Will there be an attempt to identify the missing fatal cases in the past, through registries or verbal autopsies? Any limitations to recall bias to take into account?
Response: We have now included a patient inclusion flow diagram to provide an overview of the patients included for the study. The hospitalised patients will be sub-set of the population survey however they will be subjected to EQ-6D-3L and VAS in addition to other details as mentioned in Annexure 3. The total sample in the population for the epidemiological component is 108,458 persons representing 3.18% of the total population of Ernakulam district. Our studies uses ASHAs who are attached to each Gram Panchayat to report the episodes related to snakebites, and has regular interaction with the community. Due to long collaborations of working with ASHAs by JCM in Ernakulam district it is assumed that ASHAs will have knowledge of snakebite victims in each Gram Panchayat based on questioning with villagers. We will not be able to corroborate any missing cases with registries as data for 2018 year on causes of death is only available in February 2021. We do not aim to use verbal autopsy methods as snakebite is an easily reported event due to the circumstantial and symptomatic evidence as gathered from the community/family member as well as treating clinician.
2.            A DALY approach is proposed, yet, in spite of the many DALY refs, it is unclear how conform this will be to the international (Seattle-based) standards, especially the way disability-weights are established, like is done in other countries, through professionals and, possibly, at community levels. Only a (clinical) VAS approach is proposed, which is used in QALYs computations, using EuroQol versions. Presently, this sounds like quite a mixed bag. Perhaps this can be added in a better narrative in a Box. Will there be controls i.e. health matches? How will the findings be validated / compared against the present BOD weights? Against other India studies?

Response: We have revised the protocol to the use of EQ-6D-3L approach using modified card sorting method to visualise the entire description of health states. The modified CS process using EQ-6D-3L which has been validated in previous studies in Indian settings will not only act as a validation tool but also as a ‘warm-up” for the entire valuation exercises. Our use of EQ-6D-3L is is also due to the fact that other techniques such as Standard Gamble,TTO, PTO, patient elicitation and DCE are complicated to administer among rural and semi-literature populations. There are other studies that have used EQ-6D-3L (Lobo et.al. 2019; Mahpatra et. al., 2000) hence our findings will be validated against these studies published previously. We will not be using any healthy controls as this is not the focus of current study, and might be something to be conducted in future. We have also used pictorial diagrams to be used in vignettes of EQ-6D-3L component so that the valuers can visualize the entire description of health states.
3.            How is snakebite short-term and long-term morbidity defined? In clinical terms? How are the VAS and clinical data reconciled, statistically?
We are using 1-month period as short-term morbidity and long-term morbidity between 1-3 months duration. We will be capturing clinical data of patients on whom VAS will be administered and will use severity as per definition used in our study using standard statistical methods
Minor points
•             How are data queries handled?
Any data queries will be handled by a data access committee, the details are now mentioned in the revised manuscript.
•             Is there a quality assurance process, collecting data at the community and/or at the hospital? How?
Quality checks of Annexure 1 will be conducted by JCM on 1% of total sampled patients to corroborate data collection collected by field officers. For hospitalised cases, JKJ or VVP will reconduct among sample of patients (5% of patients) for validation of responses. In case the differences of EQ-6D-3L or VAS scores are substantial then the choice of scores will be used based on discussions with JCM, JKJ or VVP and will be arrived through consensus.
•            Is the a specific pilot / testing protocol / field training on the use of VAS in illiterate participants?
Both the questionnaires used in the study will be pre-tested among 5-6 participants prior to any finalisation and administration to the entire sample.

•             Can one add a scored STROBE check list, please?
STROBE checklists are used for reporting of studies hence we have not provided scores as part of the protocol. We have also added the use of cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report economic components of the study.
•             What are the challenges of generalisability? How are findings extrapolated at Kerala / all India level (as state 'country')?
Our study methods and findings will be adapted after any suitable modifications to the ICMR-funded national study that JCM is PI and other members are Co-PIs. We will also be repeating the community derived disability weights methods in other states for generalisability of findings from our study to other states.
•            What kind of costing is taking place? Perspective? Time horizon? Which checklist is used? CHEERS?
We will be using an expenditure method to derive cost of treatment and indirect cost to calculate economic costs (i.e. a prevalence approach of cost of illness method). This will be conducted using a societal perspective with a time horizon to a maximum of 12 months prior to data collection. We will be using a questionnaire to capture the resources used for treatment along with costs. Additionally costs of funeral and any subsidy through government insurance and any other means will also be captured. We will use cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report our study findings.
•             Some wording needs to be improved like in the Abstract: 'methods are calculated and presented'.
Abstract has been revised suitably.
•            Can the actual guidelines used for the BOD analysis and the community disability weights be added?
We have mentioned use of Vignettes and EQ-6D-3L description system along with DW calculations mentioned. The methods for calculating DW mentioned in our study has been used in previous studies in Indian settings.
•            Is EuroQol approval needed for use of the VAS?
No.
In addition Dr Amitava Banerjee (UCL) a long-term GBD collaborator in onboard the study team to help navigate the GBD part of the study.
•             Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
•             Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes

•             Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
•             Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
We have presented the datasets in an online repository available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14061215.v1
________________________________________
Competing Interests
No competing interests were disclosed.
________________________________________
Reviewer Expertise
health economics and epidemiology in particular burden of disease methods and clinical studies.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 09 Jul 2021

Jaideep Menon, Cardiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, 682041, India

09 Jul 2021

Author Response

Dr Louis Niessen
The study protocol describes the various sub-studies needed to estimate the health and economic burden from snakebite in Kerala, conform the global BOD approach. There are 1) ... Continue reading Dr Louis Niessen
The study protocol describes the various sub-studies needed to estimate the health and economic burden from snakebite in Kerala, conform the global BOD approach. There are 1) hospital-based study including patients with a present snakebite or a history of snakebite, 2) a district level community study in all panchayats, target about 9000 inhabitants to identify and track people who had a recent snakebite. The study is very useful and timely for the India situation and globally in the NTD discussions. Some descriptions of some methods are not very clearly (see three points below). The additional minor points (see further below) can be addressed relatively easily.
To be addressed:
1.            I would recommend a patient inclusion flow diagram. The exact number of hospital patients to be included is not clear nor the expected number per panchayat. It is unclear how hospital patients with a history of snakebite are identified and included for an interview in addition to the 62 presenting patients. It is unclear if at the community level what the sample framework is (sample 108,458 or 6904 persons? Percentage of total panchayat population?). Will there be an attempt to identify the missing fatal cases in the past, through registries or verbal autopsies? Any limitations to recall bias to take into account?
Response: We have now included a patient inclusion flow diagram to provide an overview of the patients included for the study. The hospitalised patients will be sub-set of the population survey however they will be subjected to EQ-6D-3L and VAS in addition to other details as mentioned in Annexure 3. The total sample in the population for the epidemiological component is 108,458 persons representing 3.18% of the total population of Ernakulam district. Our studies uses ASHAs who are attached to each Gram Panchayat to report the episodes related to snakebites, and has regular interaction with the community. Due to long collaborations of working with ASHAs by JCM in Ernakulam district it is assumed that ASHAs will have knowledge of snakebite victims in each Gram Panchayat based on questioning with villagers. We will not be able to corroborate any missing cases with registries as data for 2018 year on causes of death is only available in February 2021. We do not aim to use verbal autopsy methods as snakebite is an easily reported event due to the circumstantial and symptomatic evidence as gathered from the community/family member as well as treating clinician.
2.            A DALY approach is proposed, yet, in spite of the many DALY refs, it is unclear how conform this will be to the international (Seattle-based) standards, especially the way disability-weights are established, like is done in other countries, through professionals and, possibly, at community levels. Only a (clinical) VAS approach is proposed, which is used in QALYs computations, using EuroQol versions. Presently, this sounds like quite a mixed bag. Perhaps this can be added in a better narrative in a Box. Will there be controls i.e. health matches? How will the findings be validated / compared against the present BOD weights? Against other India studies?

Response: We have revised the protocol to the use of EQ-6D-3L approach using modified card sorting method to visualise the entire description of health states. The modified CS process using EQ-6D-3L which has been validated in previous studies in Indian settings will not only act as a validation tool but also as a ‘warm-up” for the entire valuation exercises. Our use of EQ-6D-3L is is also due to the fact that other techniques such as Standard Gamble,TTO, PTO, patient elicitation and DCE are complicated to administer among rural and semi-literature populations. There are other studies that have used EQ-6D-3L (Lobo et.al. 2019; Mahpatra et. al., 2000) hence our findings will be validated against these studies published previously. We will not be using any healthy controls as this is not the focus of current study, and might be something to be conducted in future. We have also used pictorial diagrams to be used in vignettes of EQ-6D-3L component so that the valuers can visualize the entire description of health states.
3.            How is snakebite short-term and long-term morbidity defined? In clinical terms? How are the VAS and clinical data reconciled, statistically?
We are using 1-month period as short-term morbidity and long-term morbidity between 1-3 months duration. We will be capturing clinical data of patients on whom VAS will be administered and will use severity as per definition used in our study using standard statistical methods
Minor points
•             How are data queries handled?
Any data queries will be handled by a data access committee, the details are now mentioned in the revised manuscript.
•             Is there a quality assurance process, collecting data at the community and/or at the hospital? How?
Quality checks of Annexure 1 will be conducted by JCM on 1% of total sampled patients to corroborate data collection collected by field officers. For hospitalised cases, JKJ or VVP will reconduct among sample of patients (5% of patients) for validation of responses. In case the differences of EQ-6D-3L or VAS scores are substantial then the choice of scores will be used based on discussions with JCM, JKJ or VVP and will be arrived through consensus.
•            Is the a specific pilot / testing protocol / field training on the use of VAS in illiterate participants?
Both the questionnaires used in the study will be pre-tested among 5-6 participants prior to any finalisation and administration to the entire sample.

•             Can one add a scored STROBE check list, please?
STROBE checklists are used for reporting of studies hence we have not provided scores as part of the protocol. We have also added the use of cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report economic components of the study.
•             What are the challenges of generalisability? How are findings extrapolated at Kerala / all India level (as state 'country')?
Our study methods and findings will be adapted after any suitable modifications to the ICMR-funded national study that JCM is PI and other members are Co-PIs. We will also be repeating the community derived disability weights methods in other states for generalisability of findings from our study to other states.
•            What kind of costing is taking place? Perspective? Time horizon? Which checklist is used? CHEERS?
We will be using an expenditure method to derive cost of treatment and indirect cost to calculate economic costs (i.e. a prevalence approach of cost of illness method). This will be conducted using a societal perspective with a time horizon to a maximum of 12 months prior to data collection. We will be using a questionnaire to capture the resources used for treatment along with costs. Additionally costs of funeral and any subsidy through government insurance and any other means will also be captured. We will use cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report our study findings.
•             Some wording needs to be improved like in the Abstract: 'methods are calculated and presented'.
Abstract has been revised suitably.
•            Can the actual guidelines used for the BOD analysis and the community disability weights be added?
We have mentioned use of Vignettes and EQ-6D-3L description system along with DW calculations mentioned. The methods for calculating DW mentioned in our study has been used in previous studies in Indian settings.
•            Is EuroQol approval needed for use of the VAS?
No.
In addition Dr Amitava Banerjee (UCL) a long-term GBD collaborator in onboard the study team to help navigate the GBD part of the study.
•             Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
•             Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes

•             Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
•             Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
We have presented the datasets in an online repository available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14061215.v1
________________________________________
Competing Interests
No competing interests were disclosed.
________________________________________
Reviewer Expertise
health economics and epidemiology in particular burden of disease methods and clinical studies.
Dr Louis Niessen
The study protocol describes the various sub-studies needed to estimate the health and economic burden from snakebite in Kerala, conform the global BOD approach. There are 1) hospital-based study including patients with a present snakebite or a history of snakebite, 2) a district level community study in all panchayats, target about 9000 inhabitants to identify and track people who had a recent snakebite. The study is very useful and timely for the India situation and globally in the NTD discussions. Some descriptions of some methods are not very clearly (see three points below). The additional minor points (see further below) can be addressed relatively easily.
To be addressed:
1.            I would recommend a patient inclusion flow diagram. The exact number of hospital patients to be included is not clear nor the expected number per panchayat. It is unclear how hospital patients with a history of snakebite are identified and included for an interview in addition to the 62 presenting patients. It is unclear if at the community level what the sample framework is (sample 108,458 or 6904 persons? Percentage of total panchayat population?). Will there be an attempt to identify the missing fatal cases in the past, through registries or verbal autopsies? Any limitations to recall bias to take into account?
Response: We have now included a patient inclusion flow diagram to provide an overview of the patients included for the study. The hospitalised patients will be sub-set of the population survey however they will be subjected to EQ-6D-3L and VAS in addition to other details as mentioned in Annexure 3. The total sample in the population for the epidemiological component is 108,458 persons representing 3.18% of the total population of Ernakulam district. Our studies uses ASHAs who are attached to each Gram Panchayat to report the episodes related to snakebites, and has regular interaction with the community. Due to long collaborations of working with ASHAs by JCM in Ernakulam district it is assumed that ASHAs will have knowledge of snakebite victims in each Gram Panchayat based on questioning with villagers. We will not be able to corroborate any missing cases with registries as data for 2018 year on causes of death is only available in February 2021. We do not aim to use verbal autopsy methods as snakebite is an easily reported event due to the circumstantial and symptomatic evidence as gathered from the community/family member as well as treating clinician.
2.            A DALY approach is proposed, yet, in spite of the many DALY refs, it is unclear how conform this will be to the international (Seattle-based) standards, especially the way disability-weights are established, like is done in other countries, through professionals and, possibly, at community levels. Only a (clinical) VAS approach is proposed, which is used in QALYs computations, using EuroQol versions. Presently, this sounds like quite a mixed bag. Perhaps this can be added in a better narrative in a Box. Will there be controls i.e. health matches? How will the findings be validated / compared against the present BOD weights? Against other India studies?

Response: We have revised the protocol to the use of EQ-6D-3L approach using modified card sorting method to visualise the entire description of health states. The modified CS process using EQ-6D-3L which has been validated in previous studies in Indian settings will not only act as a validation tool but also as a ‘warm-up” for the entire valuation exercises. Our use of EQ-6D-3L is is also due to the fact that other techniques such as Standard Gamble,TTO, PTO, patient elicitation and DCE are complicated to administer among rural and semi-literature populations. There are other studies that have used EQ-6D-3L (Lobo et.al. 2019; Mahpatra et. al., 2000) hence our findings will be validated against these studies published previously. We will not be using any healthy controls as this is not the focus of current study, and might be something to be conducted in future. We have also used pictorial diagrams to be used in vignettes of EQ-6D-3L component so that the valuers can visualize the entire description of health states.
3.            How is snakebite short-term and long-term morbidity defined? In clinical terms? How are the VAS and clinical data reconciled, statistically?
We are using 1-month period as short-term morbidity and long-term morbidity between 1-3 months duration. We will be capturing clinical data of patients on whom VAS will be administered and will use severity as per definition used in our study using standard statistical methods
Minor points
•             How are data queries handled?
Any data queries will be handled by a data access committee, the details are now mentioned in the revised manuscript.
•             Is there a quality assurance process, collecting data at the community and/or at the hospital? How?
Quality checks of Annexure 1 will be conducted by JCM on 1% of total sampled patients to corroborate data collection collected by field officers. For hospitalised cases, JKJ or VVP will reconduct among sample of patients (5% of patients) for validation of responses. In case the differences of EQ-6D-3L or VAS scores are substantial then the choice of scores will be used based on discussions with JCM, JKJ or VVP and will be arrived through consensus.
•            Is the a specific pilot / testing protocol / field training on the use of VAS in illiterate participants?
Both the questionnaires used in the study will be pre-tested among 5-6 participants prior to any finalisation and administration to the entire sample.

•             Can one add a scored STROBE check list, please?
STROBE checklists are used for reporting of studies hence we have not provided scores as part of the protocol. We have also added the use of cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report economic components of the study.
•             What are the challenges of generalisability? How are findings extrapolated at Kerala / all India level (as state 'country')?
Our study methods and findings will be adapted after any suitable modifications to the ICMR-funded national study that JCM is PI and other members are Co-PIs. We will also be repeating the community derived disability weights methods in other states for generalisability of findings from our study to other states.
•            What kind of costing is taking place? Perspective? Time horizon? Which checklist is used? CHEERS?
We will be using an expenditure method to derive cost of treatment and indirect cost to calculate economic costs (i.e. a prevalence approach of cost of illness method). This will be conducted using a societal perspective with a time horizon to a maximum of 12 months prior to data collection. We will be using a questionnaire to capture the resources used for treatment along with costs. Additionally costs of funeral and any subsidy through government insurance and any other means will also be captured. We will use cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report our study findings.
•             Some wording needs to be improved like in the Abstract: 'methods are calculated and presented'.
Abstract has been revised suitably.
•            Can the actual guidelines used for the BOD analysis and the community disability weights be added?
We have mentioned use of Vignettes and EQ-6D-3L description system along with DW calculations mentioned. The methods for calculating DW mentioned in our study has been used in previous studies in Indian settings.
•            Is EuroQol approval needed for use of the VAS?
No.
In addition Dr Amitava Banerjee (UCL) a long-term GBD collaborator in onboard the study team to help navigate the GBD part of the study.
•             Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
•             Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes

•             Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
•             Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
We have presented the datasets in an online repository available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14061215.v1
________________________________________
Competing Interests
No competing interests were disclosed.
________________________________________
Reviewer Expertise
health economics and epidemiology in particular burden of disease methods and clinical studies.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 23 Mar 2021

Abul M. Faiz, Scientist, Dev Care Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.54070.r81324

Snakebite is labelled as 'injuries' which is not entirely true. This research will be used for further research and policy formulation, instead may be stated as utilized for policy decision and further research.

Title: aim and objectives may be mentioned/ changed as 'Objectives with division: General objective (s), and specific objectives.

Being an emergency situation snakebite attending at OPD is unlikely and to be replaced by emergency department or in-patient department, also better to include any victims of snakebite.

Study design: some contradictory statement are there: adults but mentioned that consent from a Child below 18 will be taken from parent or guardian. It would be better to include all patients irrespective of age. Why children will be excluded is not clear.

Duration of study was 12 months with 9 months retrospective and three months prospective is a concern as the data for disability should be on a prior fixed interval from bite or else one may underestimate some sequelae. It should be clearly mentioned which time point for detection of sequelae following bite will be used. There are distinct two segments of the study- epidemiological and economic aspects- should be clarified.

Snakebite is not 'poisoning' which should be corrected.

Data analytical plan to be provided.

Disability: it should be clearly mentioned which group of patients will be interviewed retrospective or prospective or both.

For the data to be collected in the Case record form there should be a check list and definition for uniformity in data collection with special note on the elements of costing.

How the psychological disability will be identified is not clear.

Informed consent: The consent form will be only in English or both in English and local language. For children, assent from will be required.

Annex 2: Clarity is needed in many fields, for example, how the species of snake will be identified, some fields are vague, example- localized reaction.

Definition is required in some files, for example adverse reaction.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Clinician with special interest in snakebite, poisoning and infectious diseases

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 09 Jul 2021

Jaideep Menon, Cardiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, 682041, India

09 Jul 2021

Author Response

DR M Abul Faiz
Abul M Faiz
Snakebite is labelled as 'injuries' which is not entirely true. This research will be used for further research and policy formulation, instead may ... Continue reading DR M Abul Faiz
Abul M Faiz
Snakebite is labelled as 'injuries' which is not entirely true. This research will be used for further research and policy formulation, instead may be stated as utilized for policy decision and further research.

Title: aim and objectives may be mentioned/ changed as 'Objectives with division: General objective (s), and specific objectives.

Response: Our study has 3 primary objectives i.e. estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community-derived disability weights. Hence we are not reporting as general and specific objectives.

Being an emergency situation snakebite attending at OPD is unlikely and to be replaced by emergency department or in-patient department, also better to include any victims of snakebite.

Response: The DALY study is planned in patients treated for snakebite in the immediate three months prior to the start of the study, the assessment for which would occur on follow-up visit as an out-patient.
Study design: some contradictory statement are there: adults but mentioned that consent from a Child below 18 will be taken from parent or guardian. It would be better to include all patients irrespective of age. Why children will be excluded is not clear.
Response: We have now added that response from the child along with those from adult parents or care-givers will be conducted.

Duration of study was 12 months with 9 months retrospective and three months prospective is a concern as the data for disability should be on a prior fixed interval from bite or else one may underestimate some sequelae. It should be clearly mentioned which time point for detection of sequelae following bite will be used. There are distinct two segments of the study- epidemiological and economic aspects- should be clarified.

Response: The estimation of epidemiological and economic components will be taken for 12 months duration to estimate annual incidence and economic costs. For the estimation of community-derived disability weights we have used 3 months duration in order to capture the hospitalisation details along with short-term disability aspects. We feel that using a longer time period would induce recall bias of short-term disability by the respondents.

Snakebite is not 'poisoning' which should be corrected.

Response: We have now corrected to injury other than due to snakebite.

Data analytical plan to be provided.

Response: The data analytical plan is mentioned in the Statistical Analysis sections and has detailed all the primary objectives.

Disability: it should be clearly mentioned which group of patients will be interviewed retrospective or prospective or both.

Response: All snakebite victims will be identified who have been bitten in the past. Patient identification is retrospective in nature.

For the data to be collected in the Case record form there should be a check list and definition for uniformity in data collection with special note on the elements of costing.

Response: We have used cost of illness checklist of Larg& Moss to capture cost elements.

How the psychological disability will be identified is not clear.

Response: Vignettes (pictorial) are used for both cognitive, anxiety and depression in line with the Euro-QoL methods. The victim identifies her level of distress from the vignettes presented and not on the basis of any other formal mental health scoring system.

Informed consent: The consent form will be only in English or both in English and local language. For children, assent from will be required.

Response: We will be using consent form in English or Malayalam as understood by the respondent. We have now added that an assent form for children will be used.

Annex 2: Clarity is needed in many fields, for example, how the species of snake will be identified, some fields are vague, example- localized reaction.

Response: Species would be reported only in case of the victim being absolutely sure of the species or if the killed/captured snake was verified and reported so.
Local signs of envenomation limited to the bite site is what is intended in the Questionnaire.

Definition is required in some files, for example adverse reaction.

Response: The field officers responsible for entering data would be trained on entry and possible responses. The initial entries are done under supervision of one of the investigators.
DR M Abul Faiz
Abul M Faiz
Snakebite is labelled as 'injuries' which is not entirely true. This research will be used for further research and policy formulation, instead may be stated as utilized for policy decision and further research.

Title: aim and objectives may be mentioned/ changed as 'Objectives with division: General objective (s), and specific objectives.

Response: Our study has 3 primary objectives i.e. estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community-derived disability weights. Hence we are not reporting as general and specific objectives.

Being an emergency situation snakebite attending at OPD is unlikely and to be replaced by emergency department or in-patient department, also better to include any victims of snakebite.

Response: The DALY study is planned in patients treated for snakebite in the immediate three months prior to the start of the study, the assessment for which would occur on follow-up visit as an out-patient.
Study design: some contradictory statement are there: adults but mentioned that consent from a Child below 18 will be taken from parent or guardian. It would be better to include all patients irrespective of age. Why children will be excluded is not clear.
Response: We have now added that response from the child along with those from adult parents or care-givers will be conducted.

Duration of study was 12 months with 9 months retrospective and three months prospective is a concern as the data for disability should be on a prior fixed interval from bite or else one may underestimate some sequelae. It should be clearly mentioned which time point for detection of sequelae following bite will be used. There are distinct two segments of the study- epidemiological and economic aspects- should be clarified.

Response: The estimation of epidemiological and economic components will be taken for 12 months duration to estimate annual incidence and economic costs. For the estimation of community-derived disability weights we have used 3 months duration in order to capture the hospitalisation details along with short-term disability aspects. We feel that using a longer time period would induce recall bias of short-term disability by the respondents.

Snakebite is not 'poisoning' which should be corrected.

Response: We have now corrected to injury other than due to snakebite.

Data analytical plan to be provided.

Response: The data analytical plan is mentioned in the Statistical Analysis sections and has detailed all the primary objectives.

Disability: it should be clearly mentioned which group of patients will be interviewed retrospective or prospective or both.

Response: All snakebite victims will be identified who have been bitten in the past. Patient identification is retrospective in nature.

For the data to be collected in the Case record form there should be a check list and definition for uniformity in data collection with special note on the elements of costing.

Response: We have used cost of illness checklist of Larg& Moss to capture cost elements.

How the psychological disability will be identified is not clear.

Response: Vignettes (pictorial) are used for both cognitive, anxiety and depression in line with the Euro-QoL methods. The victim identifies her level of distress from the vignettes presented and not on the basis of any other formal mental health scoring system.

Informed consent: The consent form will be only in English or both in English and local language. For children, assent from will be required.

Response: We will be using consent form in English or Malayalam as understood by the respondent. We have now added that an assent form for children will be used.

Annex 2: Clarity is needed in many fields, for example, how the species of snake will be identified, some fields are vague, example- localized reaction.

Response: Species would be reported only in case of the victim being absolutely sure of the species or if the killed/captured snake was verified and reported so.
Local signs of envenomation limited to the bite site is what is intended in the Questionnaire.

Definition is required in some files, for example adverse reaction.

Response: The field officers responsible for entering data would be trained on entry and possible responses. The initial entries are done under supervision of one of the investigators.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 09 Jul 2021

Jaideep Menon, Cardiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, 682041, India

09 Jul 2021

Author Response

DR M Abul Faiz
Abul M Faiz
Snakebite is labelled as 'injuries' which is not entirely true. This research will be used for further research and policy formulation, instead may ... Continue reading DR M Abul Faiz
Abul M Faiz
Snakebite is labelled as 'injuries' which is not entirely true. This research will be used for further research and policy formulation, instead may be stated as utilized for policy decision and further research.

Title: aim and objectives may be mentioned/ changed as 'Objectives with division: General objective (s), and specific objectives.

Response: Our study has 3 primary objectives i.e. estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community-derived disability weights. Hence we are not reporting as general and specific objectives.

Being an emergency situation snakebite attending at OPD is unlikely and to be replaced by emergency department or in-patient department, also better to include any victims of snakebite.

Response: The DALY study is planned in patients treated for snakebite in the immediate three months prior to the start of the study, the assessment for which would occur on follow-up visit as an out-patient.
Study design: some contradictory statement are there: adults but mentioned that consent from a Child below 18 will be taken from parent or guardian. It would be better to include all patients irrespective of age. Why children will be excluded is not clear.
Response: We have now added that response from the child along with those from adult parents or care-givers will be conducted.

Duration of study was 12 months with 9 months retrospective and three months prospective is a concern as the data for disability should be on a prior fixed interval from bite or else one may underestimate some sequelae. It should be clearly mentioned which time point for detection of sequelae following bite will be used. There are distinct two segments of the study- epidemiological and economic aspects- should be clarified.

Response: The estimation of epidemiological and economic components will be taken for 12 months duration to estimate annual incidence and economic costs. For the estimation of community-derived disability weights we have used 3 months duration in order to capture the hospitalisation details along with short-term disability aspects. We feel that using a longer time period would induce recall bias of short-term disability by the respondents.

Snakebite is not 'poisoning' which should be corrected.

Response: We have now corrected to injury other than due to snakebite.

Data analytical plan to be provided.

Response: The data analytical plan is mentioned in the Statistical Analysis sections and has detailed all the primary objectives.

Disability: it should be clearly mentioned which group of patients will be interviewed retrospective or prospective or both.

Response: All snakebite victims will be identified who have been bitten in the past. Patient identification is retrospective in nature.

For the data to be collected in the Case record form there should be a check list and definition for uniformity in data collection with special note on the elements of costing.

Response: We have used cost of illness checklist of Larg& Moss to capture cost elements.

How the psychological disability will be identified is not clear.

Response: Vignettes (pictorial) are used for both cognitive, anxiety and depression in line with the Euro-QoL methods. The victim identifies her level of distress from the vignettes presented and not on the basis of any other formal mental health scoring system.

Informed consent: The consent form will be only in English or both in English and local language. For children, assent from will be required.

Response: We will be using consent form in English or Malayalam as understood by the respondent. We have now added that an assent form for children will be used.

Annex 2: Clarity is needed in many fields, for example, how the species of snake will be identified, some fields are vague, example- localized reaction.

Response: Species would be reported only in case of the victim being absolutely sure of the species or if the killed/captured snake was verified and reported so.
Local signs of envenomation limited to the bite site is what is intended in the Questionnaire.

Definition is required in some files, for example adverse reaction.

Response: The field officers responsible for entering data would be trained on entry and possible responses. The initial entries are done under supervision of one of the investigators.
DR M Abul Faiz
Abul M Faiz
Snakebite is labelled as 'injuries' which is not entirely true. This research will be used for further research and policy formulation, instead may be stated as utilized for policy decision and further research.

Title: aim and objectives may be mentioned/ changed as 'Objectives with division: General objective (s), and specific objectives.

Response: Our study has 3 primary objectives i.e. estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community-derived disability weights. Hence we are not reporting as general and specific objectives.

Being an emergency situation snakebite attending at OPD is unlikely and to be replaced by emergency department or in-patient department, also better to include any victims of snakebite.

Response: The DALY study is planned in patients treated for snakebite in the immediate three months prior to the start of the study, the assessment for which would occur on follow-up visit as an out-patient.
Study design: some contradictory statement are there: adults but mentioned that consent from a Child below 18 will be taken from parent or guardian. It would be better to include all patients irrespective of age. Why children will be excluded is not clear.
Response: We have now added that response from the child along with those from adult parents or care-givers will be conducted.

Duration of study was 12 months with 9 months retrospective and three months prospective is a concern as the data for disability should be on a prior fixed interval from bite or else one may underestimate some sequelae. It should be clearly mentioned which time point for detection of sequelae following bite will be used. There are distinct two segments of the study- epidemiological and economic aspects- should be clarified.

Response: The estimation of epidemiological and economic components will be taken for 12 months duration to estimate annual incidence and economic costs. For the estimation of community-derived disability weights we have used 3 months duration in order to capture the hospitalisation details along with short-term disability aspects. We feel that using a longer time period would induce recall bias of short-term disability by the respondents.

Snakebite is not 'poisoning' which should be corrected.

Response: We have now corrected to injury other than due to snakebite.

Data analytical plan to be provided.

Response: The data analytical plan is mentioned in the Statistical Analysis sections and has detailed all the primary objectives.

Disability: it should be clearly mentioned which group of patients will be interviewed retrospective or prospective or both.

Response: All snakebite victims will be identified who have been bitten in the past. Patient identification is retrospective in nature.

For the data to be collected in the Case record form there should be a check list and definition for uniformity in data collection with special note on the elements of costing.

Response: We have used cost of illness checklist of Larg& Moss to capture cost elements.

How the psychological disability will be identified is not clear.

Response: Vignettes (pictorial) are used for both cognitive, anxiety and depression in line with the Euro-QoL methods. The victim identifies her level of distress from the vignettes presented and not on the basis of any other formal mental health scoring system.

Informed consent: The consent form will be only in English or both in English and local language. For children, assent from will be required.

Response: We will be using consent form in English or Malayalam as understood by the respondent. We have now added that an assent form for children will be used.

Annex 2: Clarity is needed in many fields, for example, how the species of snake will be identified, some fields are vague, example- localized reaction.

Response: Species would be reported only in case of the victim being absolutely sure of the species or if the killed/captured snake was verified and reported so.
Local signs of envenomation limited to the bite site is what is intended in the Questionnaire.

Definition is required in some files, for example adverse reaction.

Response: The field officers responsible for entering data would be trained on entry and possible responses. The initial entries are done under supervision of one of the investigators.
Competing Interests: none Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 01 Mar 2021

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 11 Jun 21	read	read
Version 1 01 Mar 21	read	read

Abul M. Faiz, Dev Care Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Louis Wihelmus Niessen, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

13 Jul 2021 | for Version 2

Abul M. Faiz, Scientist, Dev Care Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

There is significant improvement of the document after incorporating comments and adding a new table, providing much clarity.

Some additional points may be considered:

Introduction: In the last paragraph the sentence beginning with ‘The study will be...', may be put before the preceding sentence, 'This proposed study aims...’.
Aim and objectives: Separate sub-heading for aim may be provided, like 'primary objective' (which may be objective as there is no primary objective mentioned here).
There is still inconsistency that needs correction: Text mentioned only adult patients will be included, but the Ethical approval section mentioned: ‘For children an assent form will be used.’.
It may be clarified how 70 patients (and from each category 20+20+20+10) will be selected.
During this COVID-19 pandemic, assuming that public health measures will be ensured during the study, the use of PPE (e.g. masks), social distancing, and use of hand sanitizers may be mentioned in the text.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Clinician with special interest in snakebite, poisoning and infectious diseases

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

25 Jun 2021 | for Version 2

Louis Wihelmus Niessen, Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

11 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The major differences have been addressed appropriately and are more in line with the formal GBD method to compute DALYs.
The addition of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) helps to clinically assess QoL after snake bites.
The flow chart outlines in detail the patient inclusion and steps in the analyses, leading to a better picture of the epidemiology and economic burden as well as the DALY calculation.
External validity is to be addressed and dealt with in careful terms.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Health economics and epidemiology in particular burden of disease methods and clinical studies.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

21 Views

06 Apr 2021 | for Version 1

Louis Wihelmus Niessen, Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

21 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

I would recommend a patient inclusion flow diagram. The exact number of hospital patients to be included is not clear nor the expected number per panchayat. It is unclear how hospital patients with a history of snakebite are identified and included for an interview in addition to the 62 presenting patients. It is unclear if at the community level what the sample framework is (sample 108,458 or 6904 persons? Percentage of total panchayat population?). Will there be an attempt to identify the missing fatal cases in the past, through registries or verbal autopsies? Any limitations to recall bias to take into account?
A DALY approach is proposed, yet, in spite of the many DALY refs, it is unclear how conform this will be to the international (Seattle-based) standards, especially the way disability-weights are established, like is done in other countries, through professionals and, possibly, at community levels. Only a (clinical) VAS approach is proposed, which is used in QALYs computations, using EuroQol versions. Presently, this sounds like quite a mixed bag. Perhaps this can be added in a better narrative in a Box. Will there be controls i.e. health matches? How will the findings be validated / compared against the present BOD weights? Against other India studies?
How is snakebite short-term and long-term morbidity defined? In clinical terms? How are the VAS and clinical data reconciled, statistically?

Minor points

How are data queries handled?
Is there a quality assurance process, collecting data at the community and/or at the hospital? How?
Is the a specific pilot / testing protocol / field training on the use of VAS in illiterate participants?
Can one add a scored STROBE check list, please?
What are the challenges of generalisability? How are findings extrapolated at Kerala / all India level (as state 'country')?
What kind of costing is taking place? Perspective? Time horizon? Which checklist is used? CHEERS?
Some wording needs to be improved like in the Abstract: 'methods are calculated and presented'.
Can the actual guidelines used for the BOD analysis and the community disability weights be added?
Is EuroQol approval needed for use of the VAS?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

health economics and epidemiology in particular burden of disease methods and clinical studies.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

09 Jul 2021

Jaideep Menon, Cardiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, 682041, India

Dr Louis Niessen
The study protocol describes the various sub-studies needed to estimate the health and economic burden from snakebite in Kerala, conform the global BOD approach. There are 1) hospital-based study including patients with a present snakebite or a history of snakebite, 2) a district level community study in all panchayats, target about 9000 inhabitants to identify and track people who had a recent snakebite. The study is very useful and timely for the India situation and globally in the NTD discussions. Some descriptions of some methods are not very clearly (see three points below). The additional minor points (see further below) can be addressed relatively easily.
To be addressed:
1.            I would recommend a patient inclusion flow diagram. The exact number of hospital patients to be included is not clear nor the expected number per panchayat. It is unclear how hospital patients with a history of snakebite are identified and included for an interview in addition to the 62 presenting patients. It is unclear if at the community level what the sample framework is (sample 108,458 or 6904 persons? Percentage of total panchayat population?). Will there be an attempt to identify the missing fatal cases in the past, through registries or verbal autopsies? Any limitations to recall bias to take into account?
Response: We have now included a patient inclusion flow diagram to provide an overview of the patients included for the study. The hospitalised patients will be sub-set of the population survey however they will be subjected to EQ-6D-3L and VAS in addition to other details as mentioned in Annexure 3. The total sample in the population for the epidemiological component is 108,458 persons representing 3.18% of the total population of Ernakulam district. Our studies uses ASHAs who are attached to each Gram Panchayat to report the episodes related to snakebites, and has regular interaction with the community. Due to long collaborations of working with ASHAs by JCM in Ernakulam district it is assumed that ASHAs will have knowledge of snakebite victims in each Gram Panchayat based on questioning with villagers. We will not be able to corroborate any missing cases with registries as data for 2018 year on causes of death is only available in February 2021. We do not aim to use verbal autopsy methods as snakebite is an easily reported event due to the circumstantial and symptomatic evidence as gathered from the community/family member as well as treating clinician.
2.            A DALY approach is proposed, yet, in spite of the many DALY refs, it is unclear how conform this will be to the international (Seattle-based) standards, especially the way disability-weights are established, like is done in other countries, through professionals and, possibly, at community levels. Only a (clinical) VAS approach is proposed, which is used in QALYs computations, using EuroQol versions. Presently, this sounds like quite a mixed bag. Perhaps this can be added in a better narrative in a Box. Will there be controls i.e. health matches? How will the findings be validated / compared against the present BOD weights? Against other India studies?

Response: We have revised the protocol to the use of EQ-6D-3L approach using modified card sorting method to visualise the entire description of health states. The modified CS process using EQ-6D-3L which has been validated in previous studies in Indian settings will not only act as a validation tool but also as a ‘warm-up” for the entire valuation exercises. Our use of EQ-6D-3L is is also due to the fact that other techniques such as Standard Gamble,TTO, PTO, patient elicitation and DCE are complicated to administer among rural and semi-literature populations. There are other studies that have used EQ-6D-3L (Lobo et.al. 2019; Mahpatra et. al., 2000) hence our findings will be validated against these studies published previously. We will not be using any healthy controls as this is not the focus of current study, and might be something to be conducted in future. We have also used pictorial diagrams to be used in vignettes of EQ-6D-3L component so that the valuers can visualize the entire description of health states.
3.            How is snakebite short-term and long-term morbidity defined? In clinical terms? How are the VAS and clinical data reconciled, statistically?
We are using 1-month period as short-term morbidity and long-term morbidity between 1-3 months duration. We will be capturing clinical data of patients on whom VAS will be administered and will use severity as per definition used in our study using standard statistical methods
Minor points
•             How are data queries handled?
Any data queries will be handled by a data access committee, the details are now mentioned in the revised manuscript.
•             Is there a quality assurance process, collecting data at the community and/or at the hospital? How?
Quality checks of Annexure 1 will be conducted by JCM on 1% of total sampled patients to corroborate data collection collected by field officers. For hospitalised cases, JKJ or VVP will reconduct among sample of patients (5% of patients) for validation of responses. In case the differences of EQ-6D-3L or VAS scores are substantial then the choice of scores will be used based on discussions with JCM, JKJ or VVP and will be arrived through consensus.
•            Is the a specific pilot / testing protocol / field training on the use of VAS in illiterate participants?
Both the questionnaires used in the study will be pre-tested among 5-6 participants prior to any finalisation and administration to the entire sample.

•             Can one add a scored STROBE check list, please?
STROBE checklists are used for reporting of studies hence we have not provided scores as part of the protocol. We have also added the use of cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report economic components of the study.
•             What are the challenges of generalisability? How are findings extrapolated at Kerala / all India level (as state 'country')?
Our study methods and findings will be adapted after any suitable modifications to the ICMR-funded national study that JCM is PI and other members are Co-PIs. We will also be repeating the community derived disability weights methods in other states for generalisability of findings from our study to other states.
•            What kind of costing is taking place? Perspective? Time horizon? Which checklist is used? CHEERS?
We will be using an expenditure method to derive cost of treatment and indirect cost to calculate economic costs (i.e. a prevalence approach of cost of illness method). This will be conducted using a societal perspective with a time horizon to a maximum of 12 months prior to data collection. We will be using a questionnaire to capture the resources used for treatment along with costs. Additionally costs of funeral and any subsidy through government insurance and any other means will also be captured. We will use cost of illness checklist by Larg and Moss (2011) to report our study findings.
•             Some wording needs to be improved like in the Abstract: 'methods are calculated and presented'.
Abstract has been revised suitably.
•            Can the actual guidelines used for the BOD analysis and the community disability weights be added?
We have mentioned use of Vignettes and EQ-6D-3L description system along with DW calculations mentioned. The methods for calculating DW mentioned in our study has been used in previous studies in Indian settings.
•            Is EuroQol approval needed for use of the VAS?
No.
In addition Dr Amitava Banerjee (UCL) a long-term GBD collaborator in onboard the study team to help navigate the GBD part of the study.
•             Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
•             Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes

•             Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
•             Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
We have presented the datasets in an online repository available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14061215.v1
________________________________________
Competing Interests
No competing interests were disclosed.
________________________________________
Reviewer Expertise
health economics and epidemiology in particular burden of disease methods and clinical studies.

View more View less

Competing Interests

none

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

25 Views

23 Mar 2021 | for Version 1

Abul M. Faiz, Scientist, Dev Care Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh

25 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Clinician with special interest in snakebite, poisoning and infectious diseases

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

09 Jul 2021

Jaideep Menon, Cardiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, 682041, India

DR M Abul Faiz
Abul M Faiz
Snakebite is labelled as 'injuries' which is not entirely true. This research will be used for further research and policy formulation, instead may be stated as utilized for policy decision and further research.

Title: aim and objectives may be mentioned/ changed as 'Objectives with division: General objective (s), and specific objectives.

Response: Our study has 3 primary objectives i.e. estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community-derived disability weights. Hence we are not reporting as general and specific objectives.

Being an emergency situation snakebite attending at OPD is unlikely and to be replaced by emergency department or in-patient department, also better to include any victims of snakebite.

Response: The DALY study is planned in patients treated for snakebite in the immediate three months prior to the start of the study, the assessment for which would occur on follow-up visit as an out-patient.
Study design: some contradictory statement are there: adults but mentioned that consent from a Child below 18 will be taken from parent or guardian. It would be better to include all patients irrespective of age. Why children will be excluded is not clear.
Response: We have now added that response from the child along with those from adult parents or care-givers will be conducted.

Duration of study was 12 months with 9 months retrospective and three months prospective is a concern as the data for disability should be on a prior fixed interval from bite or else one may underestimate some sequelae. It should be clearly mentioned which time point for detection of sequelae following bite will be used. There are distinct two segments of the study- epidemiological and economic aspects- should be clarified.

Response: The estimation of epidemiological and economic components will be taken for 12 months duration to estimate annual incidence and economic costs. For the estimation of community-derived disability weights we have used 3 months duration in order to capture the hospitalisation details along with short-term disability aspects. We feel that using a longer time period would induce recall bias of short-term disability by the respondents.

Snakebite is not 'poisoning' which should be corrected.

Response: We have now corrected to injury other than due to snakebite.

Data analytical plan to be provided.

Response: The data analytical plan is mentioned in the Statistical Analysis sections and has detailed all the primary objectives.

Disability: it should be clearly mentioned which group of patients will be interviewed retrospective or prospective or both.

Response: All snakebite victims will be identified who have been bitten in the past. Patient identification is retrospective in nature.

For the data to be collected in the Case record form there should be a check list and definition for uniformity in data collection with special note on the elements of costing.

Response: We have used cost of illness checklist of Larg& Moss to capture cost elements.

How the psychological disability will be identified is not clear.

Response: Vignettes (pictorial) are used for both cognitive, anxiety and depression in line with the Euro-QoL methods. The victim identifies her level of distress from the vignettes presented and not on the basis of any other formal mental health scoring system.

Informed consent: The consent form will be only in English or both in English and local language. For children, assent from will be required.

Response: We will be using consent form in English or Malayalam as understood by the respondent. We have now added that an assent form for children will be used.

Annex 2: Clarity is needed in many fields, for example, how the species of snake will be identified, some fields are vague, example- localized reaction.

Response: Species would be reported only in case of the victim being absolutely sure of the species or if the killed/captured snake was verified and reported so.
Local signs of envenomation limited to the bite site is what is intended in the Questionnaire.

Definition is required in some files, for example adverse reaction.

Response: The field officers responsible for entering data would be trained on entry and possible responses. The initial entries are done under supervision of one of the investigators.

View more View less

Competing Interests

none

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Kasturiratne A, Wickremasinghe AR, De Silva N, et al.: The Global Burden of snakebite: a literature analysis and modelling based on regional estimates of envenoming and deaths. PLoS Med. 2008; 5(11): e218. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. www.who.int/snakebite/epidemiology/en/. Accessed on 10 January 2021.

[3] 3. Mohapatra B, Warrell DA, Suraweera W, et al.: Snakebite Mortality in India: A Nationally Representative Mortality Survey. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011; 5(4): e1018. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Majumder D, Sinha A, Bhattacharya SK, et al.: Epidemiological profile of snake bite in south 24 Parganas district of West Bengal with focus on underreporting of snake bite deaths. Indian J Public Health. 2014; 58(1): 17–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Suraweera W, Warrell D, Whitaker R, et al.: Trends in snakebite deaths in India from 2000 to 2019 in a nationally representative mortality study. Elife. 2020; 9: e54076. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Sarkhel S, Ghosh R, Mana K, et al.: A hospital based epidemiological study of snakebite in Paschim Medinipur district, West Bengal, India. Toxicol Rep. 2017; 4: 415–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Menon JC, Joseph JK, Whitaker RE: Venomous Snake Bite in India - Why do 50,000 Indians Die Every Year? J Assoc Physicians India. 2017; 65(8): 78–81. PubMed Abstract

[8] 8. Jayanthi GP, Gowda TV: Geographical variation in India in the composition and lethal potency of Russell’s viper (Viperarusselli) venom. Toxicon. 1988; 26(3): 257–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Prasad NB, Uma B, Bhatt SK, et al.: Comparative characterisation of Russell’s viper (Daboia/Viperarusselli) venoms from different regions of the Indian peninsula. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999; 1428(2–3): 121–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Shashidharamurthy R, Jagadeesha DK, Girish KS, et al.: Variations in biochemical and pharmacological properties of Indian cobra (Naja naja naja) venom due to geographical distribution. Mol Cell Biochem. 2002; 229(1–2): 93–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Sharma M, Gogoi N, Dhananjaya BL, et al.: Geographical variation of Indian Russell’s viper venom and neutralization of its coagulopathy by polyvalent anti-venom. Toxins Reviews. 2014; 33: 1–2, 7–15. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Dandona R, Kumar GA, Kharyal A, et al.: Mortality due to snakebite and other venomous animals in the Indian state of Bihar: Findings from a representative mortality study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(6): e0198900. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Vaiyapuri S, Vaiyapuri R, Ashokan R, et al.: Snakebite and its socio-economic Impact on the rural population of Tamil Nadu, India. PLoS One. 2013; 8(11): e80090. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Roshnath R, Kunhiraman E, Rajan CV: Incidence of snakebite and corresponding compensation payments in the Kannur district of Kerala, India. Herpetol Bull. 2018; 26–29. Reference Source

[15] 15. Fatalities from Venomous Animals: Australian Venom Research Unit, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Accessed on 17 December 2020. Reference Source

[16] 16. Anand S, Hanson K: Disability-adjusted life years: A critical review. J Health Econ. 1997; 16(6): 685–702. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Kasturiratne A, Pathmeswaran A, Wickremasinghe AR, et al.: The socio-economic burden of snakebite in Sri Lanka. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017; 11(7): e0005647. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Habib AG, Kuznik A, Hamza M, et al.: Snakebite is Under Appreciated: Appraisal of Burden from West Africa. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015; 9(9): e0004088. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Habib AG, Lamorde M, Dalhata MM, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of antivenoms for snakebite envenoming in Nigeria. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015; 9(1): e3381. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Sommerfeld J, Baltussen RMPM, Metz L, et al.: Determinants of variance in health state valuations. In Summary Measures of Population Health Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications. 2002. Reference Source

[21] 21. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, et al.: Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984; 4(3): 315–29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Nord E: Uncertainties about disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease study. Lancet Glob Health. 2015; 3(11): e661–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Lai T, Habicht J, Kiivet RA: Measuring burden of disease in Estonia to support public health policy. Eur J Public Health. 2009; 19(5): 541–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M: Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000; 17(2): 151–65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Stouthard MEA, Essink-Bot M, Bonsel G, et al.: Disability Weights for Diseases in the Netherlands. 1997; 1–67. (accessed September 4, 2017). Reference Source

[26] 26. Sung YT, Wu JSL: The Visual Analogue Scale for Rating, Ranking and Paired-Comparison (VAS-RRP): a new technique for psychological measurement. Behav Res Methods. 2018; 50(4): 1694–715. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Neethling I, Jelsma J, Ramma L, et al.: Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study? Glob Health Action. 2016; 9: 31754. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Salomon JA, Vos T, Hogan DR, et al.: Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012; 380(9859): 2129–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Haagsma JA, Maertens de Noordhout C, Polinder S, et al.: Assessing disability weights based on the responses of 30,660 people from four European countries. Popul Health Metr. 2015; 13: 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Sackett DL, Torrance GW: The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis. 1978; 31(11): 697–704. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Gudex C, Dolan P, Kind P, et al.: Health state valuations from the general public using the visual analogue scale. Qual Life Res. 1996; 5(6): 521–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Edireweera DS, Kasturiratne A, Pathmeswaran A, et al.: Mapping the risk of Snakebite in Sri Lanka- A national survey with geo-spatial analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016; 10(7): e0004813. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[33] 33. Lobo E, Nanda L, Akhouri SS, et al.: Describing the Development of a Health State Valuation Protocol to Obtain Community-Derived Disability Weights. Front Public Health. 2019; 7: 276. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[34] 34. Mathers C, Vos T, Lopez E, et al.: National Burden of Diseases Studies; A Practical Guide. Geneva: 2001. Reference Source

[35] 35. John D, Menon J: Estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community derived disability weights for snakebite in Kerala: A study protocol. figshare. Dataset. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14061215.v1

Estimating epidemiological and economic burden and community derived disability weights for snake bite in Kerala: a study protocol

Abstract

Keywords

Abbreviations

Introduction

Rationale for the study

Aim and objectives

Methods

Study design

Study geography

Study participants

Sample size calculation

Outcomes

Statistical analysis

Data collection, quality checks and monitoring

Data entry and storage

Ethical approval

Study challenges

Distribution of study results

Study status

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated