1. |
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
- Charalampous, P., et al.
(author)
-
Methodological considerations in injury burden of disease studies across Europe: a systematic literature review
- 2022
-
In: Bmc Public Health. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2458. ; 22:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Calculating the disease burden due to injury is complex, as it requires many methodological choices. Until now, an overview of the methodological design choices that have been made in burden of disease (BoD) studies in injury populations is not available. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify existing injury BoD studies undertaken across Europe and to comprehensively review the methodological design choices and assumption parameters that have been made to calculate years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD) in these studies. Methods We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, and the grey literature supplemented by handsearching, for BoD studies. We included injury BoD studies that quantified the BoD expressed in YLL, YLD, and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) in countries within the European Region between early-1990 and mid-2021. Results We retrieved 2,914 results of which 48 performed an injury-specific BoD assessment. Single-country independent and Global Burden of Disease (GBD)-linked injury BoD studies were performed in 11 European countries. Approximately 79% of injury BoD studies reported the BoD by external cause-of-injury. Most independent studies used the incidence-based approach to calculate YLDs. About half of the injury disease burden studies applied disability weights (DWs) developed by the GBD study. Almost all independent injury studies have determined YLL using national life tables. Conclusions Considerable methodological variation across independent injury BoD assessments was observed; differences were mainly apparent in the design choices and assumption parameters towards injury YLD calculations, implementation of DWs, and the choice of life table for YLL calculations. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting of injury BoD studies is crucial to enhance transparency and comparability of injury BoD estimates across Europe and beyond.
|
|
8. |
|
|
9. |
- Feigin, Valery L., et al.
(author)
-
Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990-2019 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- 2021
-
In: Lancet Neurology. - : Elsevier. - 1474-4422 .- 1474-4465. ; 20:10, s. 795-820
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Regularly updated data on stroke and its pathological types, including data on their incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability, risk factors, and epidemiological trends, are important for evidence-based stroke care planning and resource allocation. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) aims to provide a standardised and comprehensive measurement of these metrics at global, regional, and national levels. Methods We applied GBD 2019 analytical tools to calculate stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and the population attributable fraction (PAF) of DALYs (with corresponding 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) associated with 19 risk factors, for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. These estimates were provided for ischaemic stroke, intracerebral haemorrhage, subarachnoid haemorrhage, and all strokes combined, and stratified by sex, age group, and World Bank country income level. Findings In 2019, there were 12.2 million (95% UI 11.0-13.6) incident cases of stroke, 101 million (93.2-111) prevalent cases of stroke, 143 million (133-153) DALYs due to stroke, and 6.55 million (6.00-7.02) deaths from stroke. Globally, stroke remained the second-leading cause of death (11.6% [10.8-12.2] of total deaths) and the third-leading cause of death and disability combined (5.7% [5.1-6.2] of total DALYs) in 2019. From 1990 to 2019, the absolute number of incident strokes increased by 70.0% (67.0-73.0), prevalent strokes increased by 85.0% (83.0-88.0), deaths from stroke increased by 43.0% (31.0-55.0), and DALYs due to stroke increased by 32.0% (22.0-42.0). During the same period, age-standardised rates of stroke incidence decreased by 17.0% (15.0-18.0), mortality decreased by 36.0% (31.0-42.0), prevalence decreased by 6.0% (5.0-7.0), and DALYs decreased by 36.0% (31.0-42.0). However, among people younger than 70 years, prevalence rates increased by 22.0% (21.0-24.0) and incidence rates increased by 15.0% (12.0-18.0). In 2019, the age-standardised stroke-related mortality rate was 3.6 (3.5-3.8) times higher in the World Bank low-income group than in the World Bank high-income group, and the age-standardised stroke-related DALY rate was 3.7 (3.5-3.9) times higher in the low-income group than the high-income group. Ischaemic stroke constituted 62.4% of all incident strokes in 2019 (7.63 million [6.57-8.96]), while intracerebral haemorrhage constituted 27.9% (3.41 million [2.97-3.91]) and subarachnoid haemorrhage constituted 9.7% (1.18 million [1.01-1.39]). In 2019, the five leading risk factors for stroke were high systolic blood pressure (contributing to 79.6 million [67.7-90.8] DALYs or 55.5% [48.2-62.0] of total stroke DALYs), high body-mass index (34.9 million [22.3-48.6] DALYs or 24.3% [15.7-33.2]), high fasting plasma glucose (28.9 million [19.8-41.5] DALYs or 20.2% [13.8-29.1]), ambient particulate matter pollution (28.7 million [23.4-33.4] DALYs or 20.1% [16.6-23.0]), and smoking (25.3 million [22.6-28.2] DALYs or 17.6% [16.4-19.0]). Interpretation The annual number of strokes and deaths due to stroke increased substantially from 1990 to 2019, despite substantial reductions in age-standardised rates, particularly among people older than 70 years. The highest age-standardised stroke-related mortality and DALY rates were in the World Bank low-income group. The fastest-growing risk factor for stroke between 1990 and 2019 was high body-mass index. Without urgent implementation of effective primary prevention strategies, the stroke burden will probably continue to grow across the world, particularly in low-income countries.
|
|
10. |
- Baravelli, C. M., et al.
(author)
-
Subnational inequalities in YLLs and associated socioeconomic factors : a disease burden study
- 2023
-
In: European Journal of Public Health. - : Oxford University Press. - 1101-1262 .- 1464-360X. ; 33:Suppl. 2, s. ii142-ii143
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Background: Health inequalities are an unjust and avoidable problem. Thiss tudy examines subnational geographical inequalities in all-cause years of life lost (YLLs) and the association of socioeconomic factors in pre-coronavirus European Economic Area (EEA) countries.Methods: In this ecological study complimented with a longitudinal analysis, demographic and socioeconomic data for 1390 small regions and 285 basic regions of 32 EEA countries were extracted from Eurostat. Age-standardised YLL rates per 100,000 population were estimated from 2009 to 2019 based on methods from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Inequalities were assessed using the Gini coefficient (GC) and slope index of inequality (SII). The association between socioeconomic factors by YLLs were assessed using negative binomial mixed models in 2019.Findings: Over the period 2009-2019, YLLs have decreased in almost all subnational regions. The GC of YLLs across EEA regions was 14% for females (95% CI = 135 to 146%) and 17% for males (CI = 161 to 175%). Greece (GC = 101%, CI = 78 to 25%) and Belgium (GC = 108%, CI = 95 to 120%) had the highest relative inequalities in YLLs for women and men, respectively. Subnational regions with the lowest income (incident rate ratio (IRR) = 139, CI = 123 to 158) and levels of educational attainment (IRRfemales = 119, CI = 113 to 126; IRRmales = 122, CI = 116 to 128), and highest poverty risk (IRR = 118, CI = 112 to 125) were associated with increased YLLs, with stronger associations observed in Central and Eastern Europe.Interpretation: Differences in YLLs remain within and between EEA countries and are associated with socioeconomic factors. This evidence can assist stakeholders in addressing specific health inequities to improve overall disease burden within the EEA.Key messages:The study highlights the need for public health policies targeted at the subnational level to reduce health inequalities in the EEA.The study describes the effect of existing public health policies targeting socioeconomic factors.
|
|
11. |
- Gorasso, Vanessa, et al.
(author)
-
Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a scoping literature review
- 2023
-
In: Archives of Public Health. - 0778-7367 .- 2049-3258. ; 81:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|