| 1. |
- Baral, SD, et al.
(author)
-
The highest attainable standard of evidence (HASTE) for HIV/AIDS interventions: toward a public health approach to defining evidence
- 2012
-
In: Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). - : SAGE Publications. - 1468-2877 .- 0033-3549. ; 127:6, s. 572-584
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Evidence-driven decisions have become a standard for health interventions, policy, and programs. While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are encouraged for public health interventions, there are limitations with RCTs as the gold standard of evidence for HIV interventions. We developed a novel system of evaluating evidence for assessing HIV preventive interventions termed the Highest Attainable Standard of Evidence (HASTE). Methods. The HASTE system focuses on triangulation of three distinct categories of evidence: efficacy data, implementation data, and plausibility. We conducted systematic reviews, including experimental and observational data, to assess all available interventions for men who have sex with men (MSM). We collected implementation and programmatic data using a global electronic consultation, Internet searches, and in-person consultations. We assessed plausibility with expert analyses of both biological and public health evidence. Results. HASTE includes four grades of evidence: Strong (Grade 1), Conditional (Grade 2), Insufficient (Grade 3), and Inappropriate (Grade 4). We used the HASTE system to evaluate the evidence for HIV interventions for MSM in low- and middle-income countries. Several differences emerged in the strength of recommendation with the use of the HASTE system, including strong recommendations for voluntary counseling and testing and for structural interventions. Conclusions. The HASTE system addresses a need for an evidence evaluation tool that is specific for HIV interventions and facilitates an evaluation of biomedical, behavioral, and structural approaches using the highest standard of attainable evidence. HASTE represents a tool that balances scientific integrity and practicality in assessing the quality of evidence of preventive interventions targeting the most-at-risk populations for HIV.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Falasinnu, T, et al.
(author)
-
Do Death Certificates Underestimate the Burden of Rare Diseases? The Example of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Mortality, Sweden, 2001-2013
- 2018
-
In: Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). - : SAGE Publications. - 1468-2877 .- 0033-3549. ; 133:4, s. 481-488
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Mortality due to rare diseases, which are substantial sources of premature mortality, is underreported in mortality studies. The objective of this study was to determine the completeness of reporting systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) as a cause of death. Methods: In 2017, we linked data on a Swedish population-based cohort (the Swedish Lupus Linkage, 2001-2013) comprising people with SLE (n = 8560) and their matched general population comparators (n = 37 717) to data from the Cause of Death Register. We reviewed death records of deceased people from the cohort (n = 5110) and extracted data on patient demographic characteristics and causes of death. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for not reporting SLE as a cause of death by using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models. Results: Of 1802 deaths among SLE patients in the study, 1071 (59%) did not have SLE reported on their death records. Most SLE decedents were aged 75-84 at death (n = 584, 32%), female (n = 1462, 81%), and born in Nordic countries (n = 1730, 96%). Decedents aged ≥85 at death were more likely to have SLE not reported on their death records than were decedents aged <50 (OR = 2.34; 95% CI, 1.48-3.68). Having renal failure listed as a cause of death decreased the likelihood of SLE not being reported on the death record (OR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.73), whereas having cancer listed as a cause of death increased this likelihood (OR = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.85-3.07). Conclusions: SLE was greatly underreported as a cause of mortality on death records of SLE patients, particularly in older decedents and those with cancer, thereby underestimating the true burden of this disease. Public health resources need to focus on improving the recording of rare diseases in order to enhance the epidemiological utility of mortality data.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Carlsson, Axel C., et al.
(author)
-
Neighbourhood socioeconomic status and coronary heart disease in individuals between 40 and 50 years.
- 2016
-
In: Heart. - : BMJ. - 1355-6037 .- 1468-201X. ; 102:10
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: The incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) has decreased in general but not among younger middle-aged adults. We performed a cohort study of the association between neighbourhood socioeconomic status (SES) at the age of 40 and risk of MI before the age of 50 years. METHODS: All individuals in Sweden were included in the year of their 40th birthday, if it occurred between 1998 and 2010. National registers were used to categorise neighbourhood SES into high, middle and low, and to retrieve information on incident MI and coronary heart disease (CHD). Cox regression models, adjusted for marital status, education level, immigrant status and region of residence, provided an estimate of the HRs and 95% CIs for MI or CHD. RESULTS: Out of 587 933 men and 563 719 women, incident MI occurred in 2877 (0.48%) men and 932 (0.17%) women; and CHD occurred in 4400 (0.74%) men and 1756 (0.31%) women during a mean follow-up of 5.5 years. Using individuals living in middle-SES neighbourhoods as referents, living in high-SES neighbourhoods was associated with lower risk of MI in both sexes (HR (95% CI): men: 0.72 (0.64 to 0.82), women: 0.66 (0.53 to 0.81)); living in low-SES neighbourhoods was associated with a higher risk of MI (HR (95% CI): men: 1.31 (1.20 to 1.44), women: 1.28 (1.08 to 1.50)). Similar risk estimates for CHD were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study suggest an increased risk of MI and CHD among residents from low-SES neighbourhoods and a lower risk in those from high-SES neighbourhoods compared with residents in middle-SES neighbourhoods.
|
|
