| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Driscoll, T, et al.
(författare)
-
Global and regional burden of disease and injury in 2016 arising from occupational exposures: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Occupational and environmental medicine. - : BMJ. - 1470-7926 .- 1351-0711. ; 77:3, s. 133-141
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study provides an overview of the influence of occupational risk factors on the global burden of disease as estimated by the occupational component of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016 study.MethodsThe GBD 2016 study estimated the burden in terms of deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) arising from the effects of occupational risk factors (carcinogens; asthmagens; particulate matter, gases and fumes (PMGF); secondhand smoke (SHS); noise; ergonomic risk factors for low back pain; risk factors for injury). A population attributable fraction (PAF) approach was used for most risk factors.ResultsIn 2016, globally, an estimated 1.53 (95% uncertainty interval 1.39–1.68) million deaths and 76.1 (66.3–86.3) million DALYs were attributable to the included occupational risk factors, accounting for 2.8% of deaths and 3.2% of DALYs from all causes. Most deaths were attributable to PMGF, carcinogens (particularly asbestos), injury risk factors and SHS. Most DALYs were attributable to injury risk factors and ergonomic exposures. Men and persons 55 years or older were most affected. PAFs ranged from 26.8% for low back pain from ergonomic risk factors and 19.6% for hearing loss from noise to 3.4% for carcinogens. DALYs per capita were highest in Oceania, Southeast Asia and Central sub-Saharan Africa. On a per capita basis, between 1990 and 2016 there was an overall decrease of about 31% in deaths and 25% in DALYs.ConclusionsOccupational exposures continue to cause an important health burden worldwide, justifying the need for ongoing prevention and control initiatives.
|
|
| 4. |
- Abbafati, Cristiana, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2020
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 5. |
- Beaney, Thomas, et al.
(författare)
-
May measurement month 2019 : The global blood pressure screening campaign of the international society of hypertension
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Hypertension. - 0194-911X. ; 76:2, s. 333-341
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Elevated blood pressure remains the single biggest risk factor contributing to the global burden of disease and mortality. May Measurement Month is an annual global screening campaign aiming to improve awareness of blood pressure at the individual and population level. Adults (≥18 years) recruited through opportunistic sampling were screened at sites in 92 countries during May 2019. Ideally, 3 blood pressure readings were measured for each participant, and data on lifestyle factors and comorbidities were collected. Hypertension was defined as a systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, or a diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg (mean of the second and third readings) or taking antihypertensive medication. When necessary, multiple imputation was used to estimate participants' mean blood pressure. Mixed-effects models were used to evaluate associations between blood pressure and participant characteristics. Of 1 508 130 screenees 482 273 (32.0%) had never had a blood pressure measurement before and 513 337 (34.0%) had hypertension, of whom 58.7% were aware, and 54.7% were on antihypertensive medication. Of those on medication, 57.8% were controlled to <140/90 mm Hg, and 28.9% to <130/80 mm Hg. Of all those with hypertension, 31.7% were controlled to <140/90 mm Hg, and 350 825 (23.3%) participants had untreated or inadequately treated hypertension. Of those taking antihypertensive medication, half were taking only a single drug, and 25% reported using aspirin inappropriately. This survey is the largest ever synchronized and standardized contemporary compilation of global blood pressure data. This campaign is needed as a temporary substitute for systematic blood pressure screening in many countries worldwide.
|
|
| 6. |
- Thombs, BD, et al.
(författare)
-
Overestimation of Postpartum Depression Prevalence Based on a 5-item Version of the EPDS: Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie. - : SAGE Publications. - 1497-0015. ; 65:12, s. 835-844
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Maternal Mental Health in Canada, 2018/2019, survey reported that 18% of 7,085 mothers who recently gave birth reported “feelings consistent with postpartum depression” based on scores ≥7 on a 5-item version of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS-5). The EPDS-5 was designed as a screening questionnaire, not to classify disorders or estimate prevalence; the extent to which EPDS-5 results reflect depression prevalence is unknown. We investigated EPDS-5 ≥7 performance relative to major depression prevalence based on a validated diagnostic interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID). Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science Core Collection through June 2016 for studies with data sets with item response data to calculate EPDS-5 scores and that used the SCID to ascertain depression status. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to estimate pooled percentage of EPDS-5 ≥7, pooled SCID major depression prevalence, and the pooled difference in prevalence. Results: A total of 3,958 participants from 19 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence of SCID major depression was 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0% to 13.7%), pooled percentage of participants with EPDS-5 ≥7 was 16.2% (95% CI 10.7% to 23.8%), and pooled difference was 8.0% (95% CI 2.9% to 13.2%). In the 19 included studies, mean and median ratios of EPDS-5 to SCID prevalence were 2.1 and 1.4 times. Conclusions: Prevalence estimated based on EPDS-5 ≥7 appears to be substantially higher than the prevalence of major depression. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to establish prevalence.
|
|
