Browsing by Author "Pires, Sara M. (26031106700)"

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified an error in the author name of Brecht Devleesschauwer. The incorrect author name is: Brecht Devleeschauwer The correct author name is: Brecht Devleesschauwer The author group has been updated above and the original article [1] has been corrected. © 2020 The Author(s). Reference:.

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. © 2022, The Author(s).

Background: Evidence has emerged showing that elderly people and those with pre-existing chronic health conditions may be at higher risk of developing severe health consequences from COVID-19. In Europe, this is of particular relevance with ageing populations living with non-communicable diseases, multi-morbidity and frailty. Published estimates of Years Lived with Disability (YLD) from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study help to characterise the extent of these effects. Our aim was to identify the countries across Europe that have populations at highest risk from COVID-19 by using estimates of population age structure and YLD for health conditions linked to severe illness from COVID-19. Methods: Population and YLD estimates from GBD 2017 were extracted for 45 countries in Europe. YLD was restricted to a list of specific health conditions associated with being at risk of developing severe consequences from COVID-19 based on guidance from the United Kingdom Government. This guidance also identified individuals aged 70 years and above as being at higher risk of developing severe health consequences. Study outcomes were defined as: (i) proportion of population aged 70 years and above; and (ii) rate of YLD for COVID-19 vulnerable health conditions across all ages. Bivariate groupings were established for each outcome and combined to establish overall population-level vulnerability. Results: Countries with the highest proportions of elderly residents were Italy, Greece, Germany, Portugal and Finland. When assessments of population-level YLD rates for COVID-19 vulnerable health conditions were made, the highest rates were observed for Bulgaria, Czechia, Croatia, Hungary and Bosnia and Herzegovina. A bivariate analysis indicated that the countries at high-risk across both measures of vulnerability were: Bulgaria; Portugal; Latvia; Lithuania; Greece; Germany; Estonia; and Sweden. Conclusion: Routine estimates of population structures and non-fatal burden of disease measures can be usefully combined to create composite indicators of vulnerability for rapid assessments, in this case to severe health consequences from COVID-19. Countries with available results for sub-national regions within their country, or national burden of disease studies that also use sub-national levels for burden quantifications, should consider using non-fatal burden of disease estimates to estimate geographical vulnerability to COVID-19. © 2020 The Author(s).

Background: The burden of disease (BOD) approach, originating with the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study in the 1990s, has become a cornerstone for population health monitoring. Despite the widespread use of the Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) metric, variations in methodological approaches and reporting inconsistencies hinder comparability across studies. To tackle this issue, we set out to develop guidelines for reporting DALY calculation studies to improve the transparency and comparability of BOD estimates. Methods and Findings: The development of the STROBOD statement began within the European Burden of Disease Network, evolving from initial concepts discussed in workshops and training sessions focused on critical analysis of BOD studies. In 2021, a working group was formed to refine the preliminary version into the final Standardised Reporting of Burden of Disease studies (STROBOD) statement, consisting of 28 items structured across six main sections. These sections cover the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and open science, aiming to ensure transparency and standardization in reporting BOD studies. Notably, the methods section of the STROBOD checklist encompasses aspects such as study setting, data inputs and adjustments, DALY calculation methods, uncertainty analyses, and recommendations for reproducibility and transparency. A pilot phase was conducted to test the efficacy of the STROBOD statement, highlighting the importance of providing clear explanations and examples for each reporting item. Conclusions: The inaugural STROBOD statement offers a crucial framework for standardizing reporting in BOD research, with plans for ongoing evaluation and potential revisions based on user feedback. While the current version focuses on general BOD methodology, future iterations may include specialized checklists for distinct applications such as injury or risk factor estimation, reflecting the dynamic nature of this field. © The Author(s) 2024.