Reflections on key methodological decisions in national burden of disease assessments.
Burden of disease methodology
DALYs
Disability-adjusted life years
European burden of disease network
Population health measures
Years lived with disability
Years of life lost
Journal
Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique
ISSN: 0778-7367
Titre abrégé: Arch Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9208826
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Dec 2020
31 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
15
06
2020
accepted:
08
12
2020
entrez:
1
1
2021
pubmed:
2
1
2021
medline:
2
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Summary measures of population health are increasingly used in different public health reporting systems for setting priorities for health care and social service delivery and planning. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) are one of the most commonly used health gap summary measures in the field of public health and have become the key metric for quantifying burden of disease (BoD). BoD methodology is, however, complex and highly data demanding, requiring a substantial capacity to apply, which has led to major disparities across researchers and nations in their resources to perform themselves BoD studies and interpret the soundness of available estimates produced by the Global Burden of Disease Study. BoD researchers from the COST Action European Burden of Disease network reflect on the most important methodological choices to be made when estimating DALYs. The paper provides an overview of eleven methodological decisions and challenges drawing on the experiences of countries working with BoD methodology in their own national studies. Each of these steps are briefly described and, where appropriate, some examples are provided from different BoD studies across the world. In this review article we have identified some of the key methodological choices and challenges that are important to understand when calculating BoD metrics. We have provided examples from different BoD studies that have developed their own strategies in data usage and implementation of statistical methods in the production of BoD estimates. With the increase in national BoD studies developing their own strategies in data usage and implementation of statistical methods in the production of BoD estimates, there is a pressing need for equitable capacity building on the one hand, and harmonization of methods on the other hand. In response to these issues, several BoD networks have emerged in the European region that bring together expertise across different domains and professional backgrounds. An intensive exchange in the experience of the researchers in the different countries will enable the understanding of the methods and the interpretation of the results from the local authorities who can effectively integrate the BoD estimates in public health policies, intervention and prevention programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Summary measures of population health are increasingly used in different public health reporting systems for setting priorities for health care and social service delivery and planning. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) are one of the most commonly used health gap summary measures in the field of public health and have become the key metric for quantifying burden of disease (BoD). BoD methodology is, however, complex and highly data demanding, requiring a substantial capacity to apply, which has led to major disparities across researchers and nations in their resources to perform themselves BoD studies and interpret the soundness of available estimates produced by the Global Burden of Disease Study.
METHODS
METHODS
BoD researchers from the COST Action European Burden of Disease network reflect on the most important methodological choices to be made when estimating DALYs. The paper provides an overview of eleven methodological decisions and challenges drawing on the experiences of countries working with BoD methodology in their own national studies. Each of these steps are briefly described and, where appropriate, some examples are provided from different BoD studies across the world.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In this review article we have identified some of the key methodological choices and challenges that are important to understand when calculating BoD metrics. We have provided examples from different BoD studies that have developed their own strategies in data usage and implementation of statistical methods in the production of BoD estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
With the increase in national BoD studies developing their own strategies in data usage and implementation of statistical methods in the production of BoD estimates, there is a pressing need for equitable capacity building on the one hand, and harmonization of methods on the other hand. In response to these issues, several BoD networks have emerged in the European region that bring together expertise across different domains and professional backgrounds. An intensive exchange in the experience of the researchers in the different countries will enable the understanding of the methods and the interpretation of the results from the local authorities who can effectively integrate the BoD estimates in public health policies, intervention and prevention programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33384020
doi: 10.1186/s13690-020-00519-7
pii: 10.1186/s13690-020-00519-7
pmc: PMC7774238
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
137Références
Lancet. 2012 Jul 7;380(9836):37-43
pubmed: 22579043
Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Jun;83(6):443-8
pubmed: 15976895
Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S217-32
pubmed: 2646490
J Health Econ. 1997 Dec;16(6):685-702
pubmed: 10176779
Int J Public Health. 2020 Jul;65(6):719-720
pubmed: 32691080
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 2;15(3):e0226766
pubmed: 32119685
Glob J Health Sci. 2012 Dec 21;5(2):134-44
pubmed: 23445701
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Feb 1;30(1):30-35
pubmed: 31647528
J Korean Med Sci. 2016 Nov;31 Suppl 2:S121-S128
pubmed: 27775249
J Korean Med Sci. 2007 Jun;22(3):518-23
pubmed: 17596664
Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1736-1788
pubmed: 30496103
Eur J Public Health. 2009 Oct;19(5):541-7
pubmed: 19401358
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998 Jul;75(1):23-55
pubmed: 9719656
Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2129-43
pubmed: 23245605
Eur J Public Health. 2007 Feb;17(1):80-5
pubmed: 16751634
Popul Health Metr. 2015 Nov 18;13:31
pubmed: 26582970
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 1;13(8):e0196906
pubmed: 30067740
BMC Public Health. 2014 Nov 21;14:1196
pubmed: 25416547
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Nov;3(11):e712-23
pubmed: 26475018
Am J Public Health. 2000 Aug;90(8):1241-7
pubmed: 10937004
Arch Public Health. 2020 Jan 03;78:1
pubmed: 31908777
J Health Monit. 2020 Sep 09;5(Suppl 6):2-24
pubmed: 35146296
Stroke. 2009 Dec;40(12):3828-33
pubmed: 19797698
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 18;9(8):e027825
pubmed: 31427320
J Korean Med Sci. 2018 Nov 09;34(Suppl 1):e89
pubmed: 30923492
Popul Health Metr. 2014 Aug 23;12:20
pubmed: 26019690
Eur J Public Health. 2017 Apr 1;27(2):191-192
pubmed: 28375431
Rev Saude Publica. 2014 Aug;48(4):671-81; discussion 681
pubmed: 25210826
BMC Public Health. 2015 Feb 07;15:101
pubmed: 25884915
Arch Public Health. 2020 Sep 22;78:85
pubmed: 32983448
Eur J Public Health. 2018 Aug 1;28(4):773-778
pubmed: 29697771
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Aug 1;48(4):1367-1376
pubmed: 30629192
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1211-1259
pubmed: 28919117
Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72(3):429-45
pubmed: 8062401
Lancet. 2018 Nov 3;392(10158):1647-1661
pubmed: 30497795
Int J Health Plann Manage. 1991 Jul-Sep;6(3):234-42
pubmed: 10116626
Med J Aust. 2000 Jun 19;172(12):592-6
pubmed: 10914105
Popul Health Metr. 2019 May 30;17(1):6
pubmed: 31146761
Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1789-1858
pubmed: 30496104
Arch Public Health. 2016 Aug 22;74:37
pubmed: 27551405
Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2197-223
pubmed: 23245608
Arch Public Health. 2020 Jan 9;78:3
pubmed: 31921418
Lancet. 1999 Oct 9;354(9186):1306
pubmed: 10520669
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 9;14(8):e0221026
pubmed: 31398232
Balkan Med J. 2016 Nov;33(6):662-667
pubmed: 27994921
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2018 Sep;61(9):1159-1166
pubmed: 30083946
Popul Health Metr. 2006 Apr 18;4:4
pubmed: 16620383
Popul Health Metr. 2010 May 10;8:9
pubmed: 20459720
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014 Sep 19;111(38):629-38
pubmed: 25316518
Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2063-6
pubmed: 23245602
BMC Public Health. 2014 Dec 17;14:1295
pubmed: 25518912
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Feb 1;30(1):2-3
pubmed: 31978226
Bull World Health Organ. 1996;74(4):439-43
pubmed: 8823967
Popul Health Metr. 2011 Apr 24;9:10
pubmed: 21513572
Int J Public Health. 2020 Jan;65(1):17-28
pubmed: 31932856
Lancet. 1999 Aug 28;354(9180):756-7
pubmed: 10475203
Popul Health Metr. 2015 Apr 03;13:10
pubmed: 26778920
Am J Public Health. 1995 Oct;85(10):1356-60
pubmed: 7573617
BMC Public Health. 2016 Mar 08;16:234
pubmed: 26956897
Popul Health Metr. 2012 Nov 01;10(1):21
pubmed: 23113929
Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(11):1076-84
pubmed: 11731817
Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222
pubmed: 33069326
J Korean Med Sci. 2016 Nov;31 Suppl 2:S158-S167
pubmed: 27775253
Med Decis Making. 1984;4(3):315-29
pubmed: 6335216
Int J Food Microbiol. 2013 Aug 16;166(1):34-47
pubmed: 23827806
Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8
pubmed: 7455683