Search

Background: In 2015, new disability weights (DWs) for infectious diseases were constructed based on data from four European countries. In this paper, we evaluated if country, age, sex, disease experience status, income and educational levels have an impact on these DWs. Methods: We analyzed paired comparison responses of the European DW study by participants' characteristics with separate probit regression models. To evaluate the effect of participants' characteristics, we performed correlation analyses between countries and within country by respondent characteristics and constructed seven probit regression models, including a null model and six models containing participants' characteristics. We compared these seven models using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Results: According to AIC, the probit model including country as covariate was the best model. We found a lower correlation of the probit coefficients between countries and income levels (range rs: 0.97-0.99, P < 0.01) than between age groups (range rs: 0.98-0.99, P < 0.01), educational level (range rs: 0.98-0.99, P < 0.01), sex (rs = 0.99, P < 0.01) and disease status (rs = 0.99, P < 0.01). Within country the lowest correlations of the probit coefficients were between low and high income level (range rs = 0.89-0.94, P < 0.01). Conclusions: We observed variations in health valuation across countries and within country between income levels. These observations should be further explored in a systematic way, also in non-European countries. We recommend future researches studying the effect of other characteristics of respondents on health assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In calculations of burden of disease using disability-adjusted life years, disability weights are needed to quantify health losses relating to non-fatal outcomes, expressed as years lived with disability. In 2012 a new set of global disability weights was published for the Global Burden of Disease 2010 (GBD 2010) study. That study suggested that comparative assessments of different health outcomes are broadly similar across settings, but the significance of this conclusion has been debated. The aim of the present study was to estimate disability weights for Europe for a set of 255 health states, including 43 new health states, by replicating the GBD 2010 Disability Weights Measurement study among representative population samples from four European countries. Methods: For the assessment of disability weights for Europe we applied the GBD 2010 disability weights measurement approach in web-based sample surveys in Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, and Sweden. The survey included paired comparisons (PC) and population health equivalence questions (PHE) formulated as discrete choices. Probit regression analysis was used to estimate cardinal values from PC responses. To locate results onto the 0-to-1 disability weight scale, we assessed the feasibility of using the GBD 2010 scaling approach based on PHE questions, as well as an alternative approach using non-parametric regression. Results: In total, 30,660 respondents participated in the survey. Comparison of the probit regression results from the PC responses for each country indicated high linear correlations between countries. The PHE data had high levels of measurement error in these general population samples, which compromises the ability to infer ratio-scaled values from discrete choice responses. Using the non-parametric regression approach as an alternative rescaling procedure, the set of disability weights were bounded by distance vision mild impairment and anemia with the lowest weight (0.004) and severe multiple sclerosis with the highest weight (0.677). Conclusions: PC assessments of health outcomes in this study resulted in estimates that were highly correlated across four European countries. Assessment of the feasibility of rescaling based on a discrete choice formulation of the PHE question indicated that this approach may not be suitable for use in a web-based survey of the general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a pilot study which aims to acquire experience with the new methodological approach in Europe in 2012. Computational models were developed to approximate the burden in a standardized manner. In the approach, the incidence of infections from a particular pathogen in a special year is linked to all associated health outcomes through a disease progression or outcome tree model.

Background and aimsThe Burden of Communicable Diseases in Europe (BCoDE) study aimed to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 31 selected diseases in the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA). Methods: DALYs were estimated using an incidence-based and pathogen-based approach. Incidence was estimated through assessment of data availability and quality, and a correction was applied for under-estimation. Calculation of DALYs was performed with the BCoDE software toolkit without applying time discounting and age-weighting. Results: We estimated that one in 14 inhabitants experienced an infectious disease episode for a total burden of 1.38 million DALYs (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 1.25-1.5) between 2009 and 2013; 76% of which was related to the acute phase of the infection and its short-term complications. Influenza had the highest burden (30% of the total burden), followed by tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection/AIDS and invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). Men had the highest burden measured in DALYs (60% of the total), adults 65 years of age and over had 24% and children less than 5 years of age had 11%. Age group-specific burden showed that infants (less than 1 year of age) and elderly people (80 years of age and over) experienced the highest burden. Conclusions: These results provide baseline estimates for evaluating infectious disease prevention and control strategies. The study promotes an evidence-based approach to describing population health and assessing surveillance data availability and quality, and provides information for the planning and prioritisation of limited resources in infectious disease prevention and control.

Background: The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study assesses health losses from diseases, injuries, and risk factors using disability-adjusted life-years, which need a set of disability weights to quantify health levels associated with non-fatal outcomes. The objective of this study was to estimate disability weights for the GBD 2013 study., Methods: We analysed data from new web-based surveys of participants aged 18-65 years, completed in four European countries (Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden) between Sept 23, 2013, and Nov 11, 2013, combined with data previously collected in the GBD 2010 disability weights measurement study. Surveys used paired comparison questions for which respondents considered two hypothetical individuals with different health states and specified which person they deemed healthier than the other. These surveys covered 183 health states pertinent to GBD 2013; of these states, 30 were presented with descriptions revised from previous versions and 18 were new to GBD 2013. We analysed paired comparison data using probit regression analysis and rescaled results to disability weight units between 0 (no loss of health) and 1 (loss equivalent to death). We compared results with previous estimates, and an additional analysis examined sensitivity of paired comparison responses to duration of hypothetical health states., Findings: The total analysis sample consisted of 30 230 respondents from the GBD 2010 surveys and 30 660 from the new European surveys. For health states common to GBD 2010 and GBD 2013, results were highly correlated overall (Pearson's r 0·992 [95% uncertainty interval 0·989-0·994]). For health state descriptions that were revised for this study, resulting disability weights were substantially different for a subset of these weights, including those related to hearing loss (eg, complete hearing loss: GBD 2010 0·033 [0·020-0·052]; GBD 2013 0·215 [0·144-0·307]) and treated spinal cord lesions (below the neck: GBD 2010 0·047 [0·028-0·072]; GBD 2013 0·296 [0·198-0·414]; neck level: GBD 2010 0·369 [0·243-0·513]; GBD 2013 0·589 [0·415-0·748]). Survey responses to paired comparison questions were insensitive to whether the comparisons were framed in terms of temporary or chronic outcomes (Pearson's r 0·981 [0·973-0·987])., Interpretation: This study substantially expands the empirical basis for assessment of non-fatal outcomes in the GBD study. Findings from this study substantiate the notion that disability weights are sensitive to particular details in descriptions of health states, but robust to duration of outcomes., Funding: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2015 Salomon et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY-NC-ND. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)