Joshua A Salomon1, Juanita A Haagsma2, Adrian Davis3, Charline Maertens de Noordhout4, Suzanne Polinder5, Arie H Havelaar6, Alessandro Cassini7, Brecht Devleesschauwer8, Mirjam Kretzschmar9, Niko Speybroeck4, Christopher J L Murray10, Theo Vos10. 1. Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: jsalomon@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Public Health England, London, UK. 4. Institute of Health and Society, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. 5. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 6. Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. 7. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden. 8. Institute of Health and Society, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium; Department of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium. 9. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands; National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, Netherlands. 10. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Joshua A Keefe; Shih-Jen Hwang; Tianxiao Huan; Michael Mendelson; Chen Yao; Paul Courchesne; Mohamed A Saleh; Meena S Madhur; Daniel Levy Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Ali H Mokdad; George A Mensah; Varsha Krish; Scott D Glenn; Molly K Miller-Petrie; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Shawn T Brown; Leila A Haidari; Samantha Clark; Taiwo Abimbola; Sarah E Pallas; Aaron S Wallace; Elizabeth A Mitgang; Jim Leonard; Sarah M Bartsch; Tatenda T Yemeke; Eli Zenkov; Sachiko Ozawa Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Y Y Lee; J J Barendregt; E A Stockings; A J Ferrari; H A Whiteford; G A Patton; C Mihalopoulos Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Emily R Smith; Tessa Concepcion; Stephanie Lim; Sam Sadler; Dan Poenaru; Anthony T Saxton; Mark Shrime; Emmanuel Ameh; Henry E Rice Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 3.352