| 1. |
- Chen-Xu, José, et al.
(författare)
-
Subnational inequalities in years of life lost and associations with socioeconomic factors in pre-pandemic Europe, 2009-19 : an ecological study
- 2024
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Public Health. - : Elsevier. - 2468-2667. ; 9:3, s. e166-e177
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Health inequalities have been associated with shorter lifespans. We aimed to investigate subnational geographical inequalities in all-cause years of life lost (YLLs) and the association between YLLs and socioeconomic factors, such as household income, risk of poverty, and educational attainment, in countries within the European Economic Area (EEA) before the COVID-19 pandemic.METHODS: In this ecological study, we extracted demographic and socioeconomic data from Eurostat for 1390 small regions and 285 basic regions for 32 countries in the EEA, which was complemented by a time-trend analysis of subnational regions within the EEA. Age-standardised YLL rates per 100 000 population were estimated from 2009 to 2019 based on methods from the Global Burden of Disease study. Geographical inequalities were assessed using the Gini coefficient and slope index of inequality. Socioeconomic inequalities were assessed by investigating the association between socioeconomic factors (educational attainment, household income, and risk of poverty) and YLLs in 2019 using negative binomial mixed models.FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2019, YLLs lowered in almost all subnational regions. The Gini coefficient of YLLs across all EEA regions was 14·2% (95% CI 13·6-14·8) for females and 17·0% (16·3 to 17·7) for males. Relative geographical inequalities in YLLs among women were highest in the UK (Gini coefficient 11·2% [95% CI 10·1-12·3]) and among men were highest in Belgium (10·8% [9·3-12·2]). The highest YLLs were observed in subnational regions with the lowest levels of educational attainment (incident rate ratio [IRR] 1·19 [1·13-1·26] for females; 1·22 [1·16-1·28] for males), household income (1·35 [95% CI 1·19-1·53]), and the highest poverty risk (1·25 [1·18-1·34]).INTERPRETATION: Differences in YLLs remain within, and between, EEA countries and are associated with socioeconomic factors. This evidence can assist stakeholders in addressing health inequities to improve overall disease burden within the EEA.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gorasso, Vanessa, et al.
(författare)
-
Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a scoping literature review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Archives of Public Health. - 0778-7367 .- 2049-3258. ; 81:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: Within the framework of the burden of disease (BoD) approach, disease and injury burden estimates attributable to risk factors are a useful guide for policy formulation and priority setting in disease prevention. Considering the important differences in methods, and their impact on burden estimates, we conducted a scoping literature review to: (1) map the BoD assessments including risk factors performed across Europe; and (2) identify the methodological choices in comparative risk assessment (CRA) and risk assessment methods. Methods: We searched multiple literature databases, including grey literature websites and targeted public health agencies websites. Results: A total of 113 studies were included in the synthesis and further divided into independent BoD assessments (54 studies) and studies linked to the Global Burden of Disease (59 papers). Our results showed that the methods used to perform CRA varied substantially across independent European BoD studies. While there were some methodological choices that were more common than others, we did not observe patterns in terms of country, year or risk factor. Each methodological choice can affect the comparability of estimates between and within countries and/or risk factors, since they might significantly influence the quantification of the attributable burden. From our analysis we observed that the use of CRA was less common for some types of risk factors and outcomes. These included environmental and occupational risk factors, which are more likely to use bottom-up approaches for health outcomes where disease envelopes may not be available. Conclusions: Our review also highlighted misreporting, the lack of uncertainty analysis and the under-investigation of causal relationships in BoD studies. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting BoD studies will help understand differences, avoid misinterpretations thus improving comparability among estimates.
|
|
