Inge Spronk1, Juanita A Haagsma2, Dale W Edgar3, Margriet E van Baar4, Suzanne Polinder2, Fiona M Wood5. 1. Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: i.spronk@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. State Adult Burn Unit, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia; Burn Injury Research Node, The University of Notre Dame, Western Australia, Australia; Fiona Wood Foundation, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia. Electronic address: Dale.edgar@health.wa.gov.au. 4. Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. State Adult Burn Unit, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia; Fiona Wood Foundation, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Priority setting and resource allocation in health care, surveillance and interventions is based increasingly on burden of disease. Several methods exist to calculate the non-fatal burden of disease of burns expressed in years lived with disability (YLDs). The aim of this study was to assess the burden of disease due to burns in Western Australia 2011-2018 and compare YLD outcomes between three existing methods. METHODS: Data from the Burns Service of Western Australia was used. Three existing methods to assess YLDs were compared: the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) method, a method dedicated to assess injury YLDs (Injury-VIBES), and a method dedicated to assess burns YLDs (INTEGRIS-burns). RESULTS: Incidence data from 2,866 burn patients were used. Non-fatal burden of disease estimates differed substantially between the different methods. Estimates for 2011-2018 ranged between 610 and 1,085 YLDs per 100.000 based on the Injury-VIBES method; between 209 and 324 YLDs based on the INTEGRIS-burns method; and between 89 and 120 YLDs based on the GBD method. YLDs per case were three to nine times higher when the Injury-VIBES method was applied compared to the other methods. Also trends in time differed widely through application of the different methods. There was a strong increase in YLDs over the years when the Injury-VIBES method was applied, a slight increase when the INTEGRIS-burns method was applied and a stable pattern when the GBD method was applied. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the choice for a specific method heavily influences the non-fatal burden of disease expressed in YLDs, both in terms of annual estimates as well as in trends over time. By addressing the methodological limitations evident in previously published calculations of the non-fatal burden of disease, the INTEGRIS-burns seems to present a method to provide the most robust estimates to date, as it is the only method adapted to the nature of burn injuries and their recovery.
BACKGROUND: Priority setting and resource allocation in health care, surveillance and interventions is based increasingly on burden of disease. Several methods exist to calculate the non-fatal burden of disease of burns expressed in years lived with disability (YLDs). The aim of this study was to assess the burden of disease due to burns in Western Australia 2011-2018 and compare YLD outcomes between three existing methods. METHODS: Data from the Burns Service of Western Australia was used. Three existing methods to assess YLDs were compared: the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) method, a method dedicated to assess injury YLDs (Injury-VIBES), and a method dedicated to assess burns YLDs (INTEGRIS-burns). RESULTS: Incidence data from 2,866 burn patients were used. Non-fatal burden of disease estimates differed substantially between the different methods. Estimates for 2011-2018 ranged between 610 and 1,085 YLDs per 100.000 based on the Injury-VIBES method; between 209 and 324 YLDs based on the INTEGRIS-burns method; and between 89 and 120 YLDs based on the GBD method. YLDs per case were three to nine times higher when the Injury-VIBES method was applied compared to the other methods. Also trends in time differed widely through application of the different methods. There was a strong increase in YLDs over the years when the Injury-VIBES method was applied, a slight increase when the INTEGRIS-burns method was applied and a stable pattern when the GBD method was applied. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the choice for a specific method heavily influences the non-fatal burden of disease expressed in YLDs, both in terms of annual estimates as well as in trends over time. By addressing the methodological limitations evident in previously published calculations of the non-fatal burden of disease, the INTEGRIS-burns seems to present a method to provide the most robust estimates to date, as it is the only method adapted to the nature of burn injuries and their recovery.