| 1. |
- Lind, Lars, et al.
(författare)
-
Heterogeneous contributions of change in population distribution of body mass index to change in obesity and underweight NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: eLife. - : eLife Sciences Publications Ltd. - 2050-084X. ; 10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- From 1985 to 2016, the prevalence of underweight decreased, and that of obesity and severe obesity increased, in most regions, with significant variation in the magnitude of these changes across regions. We investigated how much change in mean body mass index (BMI) explains changes in the prevalence of underweight, obesity, and severe obesity in different regions using data from 2896 population-based studies with 187 million participants. Changes in the prevalence of underweight and total obesity, and to a lesser extent severe obesity, are largely driven by shifts in the distribution of BMI, with smaller contributions from changes in the shape of the distribution. In East and Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the underweight tail of the BMI distribution was left behind as the distribution shifted. There is a need for policies that address all forms of malnutrition by making healthy foods accessible and affordable, while restricting unhealthy foods through fiscal and regulatory restrictions.
|
|
| 2. |
- Mishra, A, et al.
(författare)
-
Diminishing benefits of urban living for children and adolescents' growth and development
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 615:7954, s. 874-883
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Optimal growth and development in childhood and adolescence is crucial for lifelong health and well-being1–6. Here we used data from 2,325 population-based studies, with measurements of height and weight from 71 million participants, to report the height and body-mass index (BMI) of children and adolescents aged 5–19 years on the basis of rural and urban place of residence in 200 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020. In 1990, children and adolescents residing in cities were taller than their rural counterparts in all but a few high-income countries. By 2020, the urban height advantage became smaller in most countries, and in many high-income western countries it reversed into a small urban-based disadvantage. The exception was for boys in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in some countries in Oceania, south Asia and the region of central Asia, Middle East and north Africa. In these countries, successive cohorts of boys from rural places either did not gain height or possibly became shorter, and hence fell further behind their urban peers. The difference between the age-standardized mean BMI of children in urban and rural areas was <1.1 kg m–2 in the vast majority of countries. Within this small range, BMI increased slightly more in cities than in rural areas, except in south Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and some countries in central and eastern Europe. Our results show that in much of the world, the growth and developmental advantages of living in cities have diminished in the twenty-first century, whereas in much of sub-Saharan Africa they have amplified.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Silventoinen, Karri, et al.
(författare)
-
Genetic and environmental variation in educational attainment : an individual-based analysis of 28 twin cohorts
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Scientific Reports. - : Springer Nature. - 2045-2322. ; 10:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We investigated the heritability of educational attainment and how it differed between birth cohorts and cultural–geographic regions. A classical twin design was applied to pooled data from 28 cohorts representing 16 countries and including 193,518 twins with information on educational attainment at 25 years of age or older. Genetic factors explained the major part of individual differences in educational attainment (heritability: a2 = 0.43; 0.41–0.44), but also environmental variation shared by co-twins was substantial (c2 = 0.31; 0.30–0.33). The proportions of educational variation explained by genetic and shared environmental factors did not differ between Europe, North America and Australia, and East Asia. When restricted to twins 30 years or older to confirm finalized education, the heritability was higher in the older cohorts born in 1900–1949 (a2 = 0.44; 0.41–0.46) than in the later cohorts born in 1950–1989 (a2 = 0.38; 0.36–0.40), with a corresponding lower influence of common environmental factors (c2 = 0.31; 0.29–0.33 and c2 = 0.34; 0.32–0.36, respectively). In conclusion, both genetic and environmental factors shared by co-twins have an important influence on individual differences in educational attainment. The effect of genetic factors on educational attainment has decreased from the cohorts born before to those born after the 1950s.
|
|
| 6. |
- Fu, Becky Q., et al.
(författare)
-
Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Interventions for Reducing Avoidable Hospital Readmission: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies
- 2023
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Health Policy and Management. - : KERMAN UNIV MEDICAL SCIENCES. - 2322-5939 .- 2322-5939. ; 12, s. 1-17
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Avoidable hospital readmission is a major problem among health systems. Although there are effective peri-discharge interventions for reducing avoidable hospital readmission, successful implementation is challenging. This systematic review(SR) of qualitative studies aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing peri-discharge interventions from providers and service users perspectives.Methods: We searched four databases for potentially eligible qualitative studies from databases inception to Mar 2020, and updated literature search for studies published between 2020 to Oct 2021. Barriers and facilitators to implementing peri-discharge interventions were identified and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research(CFIR) constructs. Inductive analysis of the CFIR constructs was performed to yield thematic areas that illustrated the relationship between various facilitators and barriers, generating practical insights to key implementation issues. Results: Thirteen qualitative studies were included in this SR. Key issues were clustered in the CFIR constructs of Design Quality and Complexity of the intervention, strength of Network and Communication, being responsive to Patient Needs with sufficient Resource support, and External Incentives. The three thematic areas were rationality of the interventions, readiness and effort of multidisciplinary implementation teams, and influence of external stakeholders. Common barriers included i) limited resources, ii) poor communication among team members, iii) incompatibility between the new intervention and existing work routine, iv) complicated implementation process, v) low practicality of supporting instruments, and vi) lack of understanding about the content and effectiveness of the new interventions. Common facilitators were i) information sharing via regular meetings on implementation issues, ii) organizational culture that values quality and accountability, iii) financial penalties for hospitals with high avoidable readmissions rates, iv) external support offered via quality improvement programs and community resources, and v) senior leadership support. Conclusions: This study synthesized commonly-presenting barriers and facilitators to implementing peri-discharge interventions among different healthcare organizations. Findings may inform development of implementation strategies in different health systems after appropriate tailoring, based on a consensus-based formative research process.
|
|
| 7. |
- Ingvarsson, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Why do they do it? : A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central Ltd. - 1748-5908. ; 15:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The use of low-value care (LVC) is widespread and has an impact on both the use of resources and the quality of care. However, few studies have thus far studied the factors influencing the use of LVC from the perspective of the practitioners themselves. The aim of this study is to understand why physicians within primary care use LVC. Methods: Six primary health care centers in the Stockholm Region were purposively selected. Focus group discussions were conducted with physicians (n = 31) working in the centers. The discussions were coded inductively using a grounded theory approach. Results: Three main reasons for performing LVC were identified. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do was related to being unaware of the LVC status of a practice, guidelines perceived as conflicting, guidelines perceived to be irrelevant for the target patient population, or a lack of trust in the guidelines. Perceived pressure from others concerned patient pressure, pressure from other physicians, or pressure from the health care system. A desire to do something for the patients was associated with the fact that the visit in itself prompts action, symptoms to relieve, or that patients' emotions need to be reassured. The three reasons are interdependent. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do have made it more difficult to handle the pressure from others and to refrain from doing something for the patients. The pressure from others and the desire to do something for the patients enhanced the uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do. Furthermore, the pressure from others influenced the desire to do something for the patients. Conclusions: Three reasons work together to explain primary care physicians’ use of LVC: uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do, perceived pressure from others, and the desire to do something for the patients. The reasons may, in turn, be influenced by the health care system, but the decision nevertheless seemed to be up to the individual physician. The findings suggest that the de-implementation of LVC needs to address the three reasons from a systems perspective.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Nilsen, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Theories, models and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care : A scoping review of the literature
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation Research and Practice. - 2633-4895.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Achieving an evidence-based practice not only depends on implementation of evidence-based interventions (programs, methods, etc.) but also requires de-implementing interventions that are not evidence-based, that is, low-value care (LVC). Thus, de-implementation is the other side of the coin of an evidence-based practice. However, this is quite a new topic and knowledge is lacking concerning how de-implementation and implementation processes and determinants might differ. It is almost mandatory for implementation researchers to use theories, models, and frameworks (i.e., “theoretical approaches”) to describe, guide, or explain implementation processes and determinants. To what extent are such approaches also used with regard to de-implementation of LVC? And what are the characteristics of such approaches when analyzing de-implementation processes? We reviewed the literature to explore issues such as these. We identified only 10 studies describing theoretical approaches that have been used concerning de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented approaches developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC and five studies applied an already-existing approach usually applied to analyze implementation processes. Most of the theoretical approaches we found suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC, that is, successfully de-implementing LVC may require strategies that target teams, departments, and organizations and merely focus on individual health care practitioners. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC, and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation. In terms of practice and policy implications, the study underscores the relevance of addressing multiple levels when attempting to de-implement LVC.
|
|
| 10. |
- Nilsen, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care: A scoping review of the literature
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation research and practice. - : SAGE Publications. - 2633-4895. ; 1, s. 2633489520953762-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this scoping review was to identify theories, models, and frameworks for understanding the processes and determinants of de-implementing low-value care (LVC). We investigated theories, models, and frameworks developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC (conceptual studies) and those that were originally developed for implementation of evidence-based practices but were applied in studies to analyze de-implementation of LVC (empirical studies). Methods: We performed a scoping review to identify theories, models, and frameworks used to describe, guide, or explain de-implementation of LVC, encompassing four stages following the identification of the research question: (1) identifying relevant studies; (2) study selection; (3) charting the data; and (4) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The database searches yielded 9,642 citations. After removing duplicates, 6,653 remained for the abstract screening process. After screening the abstracts, 76 citations remained. Of these, 10 studies were included in the review. Results: We identified 10 studies describing theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to understand de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented theories, models, or frameworks developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC (i.e., conceptual studies) and five studies applied an existing theory, model, or framework concerning implementation of evidence-based practices (i.e., empirical studies). Conclusion: Most of the theories, models, and frameworks that are used to analyze LVC suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC. The role of the patient is inconsistent in these theories, models, and frameworks; patients are accounted for in some but not in others. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation. Plain language abstract Achieving an evidence-based practice not only depends on implementation of evidence-based interventions (programs, methods, etc.) but also requires de-implementing interventions that are not evidence-based, that is, low-value care (LVC). Thus, de-implementation is the other side of the coin of an evidence-based practice. However, this is quite a new topic and knowledge is lacking concerning how de-implementation and implementation processes and determinants might differ. It is almost mandatory for implementation researchers to use theories, models, and frameworks (i.e., “theoretical approaches”) to describe, guide, or explain implementation processes and determinants. To what extent are such approaches also used with regard to de-implementation of LVC? And what are the characteristics of such approaches when analyzing de-implementation processes? We reviewed the literature to explore issues such as these. We identified only 10 studies describing theoretical approaches that have been used concerning de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented approaches developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC and five studies applied an already-existing approach usually applied to analyze implementation processes. Most of the theoretical approaches we found suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC, that is, successfully de-implementing LVC may require strategies that target teams, departments, and organizations and merely focus on individual health care practitioners. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC, and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation. In terms of practice and policy implications, the study underscores the relevance of addressing multiple levels when attempting to de-implement LVC.
|
|
