Search

Abstract Background The European Union (EU) faces many health-related challenges. Burden of diseases information and the resulting trends over time are essential for health planning. This paper reports estimates of disease burden in the EU and individual 27 EU countries in 2019, and compares them with those in 2010. Methods We used the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study estimates and 95% uncertainty intervals for the whole EU and each country to evaluate age-standardised death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates for Level 2 causes, as well as life expectancy and healthy life expectancy (HALE). Results In 2019, the age-standardised death and DALY rates in the EU were 465.8 deaths and 20,251.0 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants, respectively. Between 2010 and 2019, there were significant decreases in age-standardised death and YLL rates across EU countries. However, YLD rates remained mainly unchanged. The largest decreases in age-standardised DALY rates were observed for “HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases” and “transport injuries” (each -19%). “Diabetes and kidney diseases” showed a significant increase for age-standardised DALY rates across the EU (3.5%). In addition, “mental disorders” showed an increasing age-standardised YLL rate (14.5%). Conclusions There was a clear trend towards improvement in the overall health status of the EU but with differences between countries. EU health policymakers need to address the burden of diseases, paying specific attention to causes such as mental disorders. There are many opportunities for mutual learning among otherwise similar countries with different patterns of disease.

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. Registration The study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020177477 (available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ).

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.

Abstract Background In Europe, data on population health is fragmented, difficult to access, project-based and prone to health information inequalities in terms of availability, accessibility and especially in quality between and within countries. This situation is further exacerbated and exposed by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct) that builds on previous works of the BRIDGE Health project, carried out collaborative action to set up a sustainable infrastructure for health information in the European Union (EU). The aim of this paper is to present InfAct’s proposal for a sustainable research infrastructure, the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH), which includes the setup of a Health Information Portal on population health to be maintained beyond InfAct’s time span. Methods The strategy for the proposal was based on three components: scientific initiatives and proposals to improve Health Information Systems (HIS), exploration of technical acceptability and feasibility, and finally obtaining high-level political support.. The technical exploration (Technical Dialogues—TD) was assumed by technical experts proposed by the countries, and political guidance was provided by the Assembly of Members (AoM), which gathered representatives from Ministries of Health and Science of EU/EEA countries. The results from the AoM and the TD were integrated in the sustainability plan compiling all the major outputs of InfAct. Results The InfAct sustainability plan was organized in three main sections: a proposal of a new research infrastructure on population health (the DIPoH), new health information tools and innovative proposals for HIS, and a comprehensive capacity building programme. These activities were carried out in InfAct and are being further developed in the Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI). PHIRI is a practical rollout of DIPoH facilitating and generating the best available evidence for research on health and wellbeing of populations as impacted by COVID-19. Conclusions The sustainability plan received wide support from Member States and was recognized to have an added value at EU level. Nevertheless, there were several aspects which still need to be considered for the near future such as: (i) a commitment of stable financial and political support by Member States (MSs), (ii) the availability of resources at regional, national and European level to deal with innovations, and (iii) a more direct involvement from EU and international institutions such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD for providing support and sustainable contributions.

Abstract Background Non-Communicable diseases (NCD) are the main contributors to mortality and burden of disease. There is no infrastructure in Europe that could provide health information (HI) on Public Health monitoring and Health Systems Performance (HSP) for research and evidence-informed decision-making. Moreover, there was no EU and European Economic Area Member States (EU/EEA MSs) general consensus, on developing this initiative and guarantee its sustainability. The aim of this study is to analyze the integration of technical and political views made by the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct; Information for Action) and the results obtained from those activities, in terms of advice and national and institutional support to develop an integrated and sustainable European Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH) for research and evidence-informed policy-making. Methods InfAct established two main boards, the Technical Dialogues (TDs) and the Assembly of Members (AoM), to provide a platform for discussion with EU/EEA MSs to establish a sustainable infrastructure for HI: 1) The TDs were composed by national technical experts (NTE) with the aim to discuss and provide feedback about scientific aspects, feasibility and EU-added value of the infrastructure proposed by InfAct. 2) The AoM gathered country representatives from Ministries of Health and Research at the highest political level, with the aim of providing policy-oriented advice for the future political acceptance, support, implementation, and development of InfAct’s outcomes including DIPoH. The documentation provided for the meetings consisted in Fact-Sheets, where the main results, new methods and proposals were clearly exposed for discussion and assessment; altogether with more extended information of the DIPoH. The documentation was provided to national representatives within one more before each TD and AoM meeting. The Agenda and methodological approaches for each TD and AoM meeting consisted in the presentations of the InfAct outcomes extending the information provided in the Fact-Sheets; followed by a non-structured interaction, exchange of information, discussion and suggestions by the MSs representatives. The outcomes of the non-structured discussions were collected in Minutes of the TD and AoM meetings, and the final version was obtained with the consensus of all participants. Additionally, structured letters of political support were provided to the AoM representatives, for them to consider providing their MS written support for DIPoH. Results NTE, within the TDs, considered that DIPoH was useful for technical mutual learning and cooperation among and within countries; although they considered that the technical feasibility to uptake InfAct deliverables at the national and EU level was complex. The AoM focused on political support, resources, and expected MSs returns. The AoM representatives agreed in the interest of setting up an integrated and sustainable HI infrastructure and they considered DIPoH to be well-articulated and defined; although, some of them, expressed some barriers for providing DIPoH political support. The AoM representatives stated that the AoM is the most suitable way to inform EU MSs/ACs about future advances of DIPoH. Both boards provided valuable feedback to develop this infrastructure. Eleven countries and sixteen institutions supported the proposal, either by letters of political support or by signing the Memorandum of Understandings (MoU) and three countries, additionally, provided expression of financial commitment, for DIPoH to be added to the ESFRI 2021 roadmap. Conclusions TDs and AoM were key forums to develop, advise, advocate and provide support for a sustainable European research infrastructure for Population Health.

Abstract Background Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a public health problem in Europe, affecting all age groups. Several MetS definitions are available. The aim of this study was to compare four different MetS definitions in the Finnish adult population, to assess their agreement and to evaluate the impact of the choice of the definition on the prevalence of MetS. Methods Data from FinHealth 2017, a cross-sectional national population health survey, focusing on adults aged 25 years or older were used in the analysis (n=5687). Measured data on anthropometrics, blood pressure and biomarkers together with questionnaire data were used to classify the participants into the MetS categories according to the four definitions. The definitions chosen for the comparison were those by the World Health Organization (WHO) (1998), National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III) (2004), International Diabetes Federation (IDF) (2005), and Joint Interim Statement (JIS) (2009). Results The four MetS definitions resulted in substantially different MetS prevalence: 17.7% by WHO, 33.3% by NCEP-ATP III, 41.5% by IDF, and 43.0% by JIS. Regardless of the definition used, the prevalence of MetS increased with age. The prevalence of the different components varied between the definitions, depending on the different cut-off points adopted. Out of all participants, only 13.6% were identified to have MetS according to all four definitions. Agreement between participants recognised by different MetS definitions, estimated through kappa coefficients, was almost perfect for IDF vs. JIS (0.97), strong for JIS vs. NCEP-ATP III (0.80), moderate for IDF vs. NCEP-ATP III (0.76) and weak for WHO vs. NCEP-ATP III (0.42), WHO vs. IDF (0.41) and WHO vs. JIS (0.40). Conclusions Differences between observed prevalence of MetS in Finnish men and women using different MetS definitions were large. For cross-country comparisons, as well as for trend analyses within a country, it is essential to use the same MetS definition to avoid discrepancies in classification due to differences in used definitions.

Analizar las conduaas sexuales de riesgo para la infección por VIH, el uso de medidas de prevención y la prevalencia autoinformada de infección por VIH en varones de una de las principales asociaciones de homosexuales de la Comunidad de Madrid.

Todos los profesionales al servicio de la salud y en concreto de la administración sanitaria tenemos puntos en común y actividades susceptibles de coordinación y mejora. En este encuentro quiero mencionar dos experiencias y saberes: la de la Inspección de servicios sanitarios y también gestores de las consecuencias incapacitantes de las enfermedades. Y la nuestra, los epidemiólogos o gestores de la información sobre las enfermedades y factores de riesgo de la población, al servicio de la autoridad sanitaria y de los ciudadanos. Existen grandes áreas de colaboración entre nuestras funciones que quisiera destacar especialmente, de cara a una mayor coordinación y mejora de nuestro servicio en salud pública. Conclusiones: A través del análisis de los datos y la interpretación de los mismos se concretan los elementos finales para poder elaborar informes y recomendaciones específicas que van a parar a la autoridad sanitaria, en nuestro caso autonómica (si es un problema regional) o nacional si se requiere una intervención a nivel del Estado. Las prioridades y los protocolos de trabajo relacionados con la vigilancia epidemiológica se debaten en las "Ponencia de Vigilancia Epidemiológica", constituidas por los responsables de todas las administraciones del Estado con competencias en materia de Vigilancia, así como por todas las CCAA, y por el CNE. Es el MSSSI quien coordina esta ponencia y quien elabora, junto con el CNE la agenda de temas. Valorando especialmente las enfermedades trasmisibles, las de carácter crónico, y las enfermedades mentales, como procesos de mayor impacto sanitario, social y laboral. Así mismo procediendo a través de la vigilancia de la salud pública a la evaluación de políticas e intervenciones de salud.