Literature DB >> 14720639

Using risk analysis in Health Impact Assessment: the impact of different relative risks for men and women in different socio-economic groups.

Louise Nilunger1, Finn Diderichsen, Bo Burström, Piroska Ostlin.   

Abstract

The aim of this study is to contribute to the emerging field of quantification of Health Impact Assessment (HIA), by analysing how different relative risks affect the burden of disease for various socio-economic groups (SES). Risk analysis, utilising attributable and impact fraction, raises several methodological considerations. The present study illustrates this by measuring the impact of changed distribution levels of smoking on lung cancer, ischemic heart disease (IHD), chronic obstructive lung disorder (COLD) and stroke for the highest and lowest socio-economic groups measured in disability adjusted life years (DALY). The material is based on relative risks obtained from various international studies, smoking prevalence (SP) data and the number of DALY based on data available for Sweden. The results show that if smoking would have been eliminated (attributable fraction, AF), the inequality between the highest and lowest socio-economic groups may decrease by 75% or increase by 21% depending on the size of the relative risk. Assuming the same smoking prevalence for the lowest socio-economic group as for the highest (impact fraction), then the inequality may decrease by 7-26%. Consequently, the size of the relative risk used may have a significant impact, leading to substantial biases and therefore should be taken into serious consideration in HIA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14720639     DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8510(03)00122-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  7 in total

1.  Projected health impact of the Los Angeles City living wage ordinance.

Authors:  Brian L Cole; Riti Shimkhada; Hal Morgenstern; Gerald Kominski; Jonathan E Fielding; Sheng Wu
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Lower vitamin-D production from solar ultraviolet-B irradiance may explain some differences in cancer survival rates.

Authors:  William B Grant
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.798

3.  The potentially modifiable burden of incident heart failure due to obesity: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study.

Authors:  Laura R Loehr; Wayne D Rosamond; Charles Poole; Ann Marie McNeill; Patricia P Chang; Anita Deswal; Aaron R Folsom; Gerardo Heiss
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Differences among the elderly in the treatment costs of colorectal cancer: how important is race?

Authors:  George E Wright; William E Barlow; Pamela Green; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 5.  Will cardiovascular disease prevention widen health inequalities?

Authors:  Simon Capewell; Hilary Graham
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 6.  Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact.

Authors:  Rory McGill; Elspeth Anwar; Lois Orton; Helen Bromley; Ffion Lloyd-Williams; Martin O'Flaherty; David Taylor-Robinson; Maria Guzman-Castillo; Duncan Gillespie; Patricia Moreira; Kirk Allen; Lirije Hyseni; Nicola Calder; Mark Petticrew; Martin White; Margaret Whitehead; Simon Capewell
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-05-02       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 7.  Dealing with uncertainties in environmental burden of disease assessment.

Authors:  Anne B Knol; Arthur C Petersen; Jeroen P van der Sluijs; Erik Lebret
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 5.984

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.