MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2097819223 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00195-6

Changes in health in England, with analysis by English regions and areas of deprivation, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

2015· article· en· W2097819223 sur OpenAlexaffabout
John Newton, Adam Briggs, Christopher J L Murray, Daniel Dicker, Kyle J Foreman, Haidong Wang, Mohsen Naghavi, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar, Summer Lockett Ohno, Ryan M Barber, Theo Vos, Jeffrey D Stanaway, Jürgen C Schmidt, Andrew Hughes, Derek F J Fay, Russell Ecob, C. Gresser, Martin McKee, Harry Rutter, Ibrahim Abubakar, Raghib Ali, H Ross Anderson, Amitava Banerjee, Derrick Bennett, Eduardo Bernabé, Kamaldeep Bhui, S. M. Biryukov, Rupert Bourne, Carol Brayne, Nigel Bruce, Traolach Brugha, Michael Burch, Simon Capewell, Daniel Casey, Rajiv Chowdhury, Matthew M Coates, Cyrus Cooper, Julia Critchley, Paul I. Dargan, Mukesh Dherani, Paul Elliott, Majid Ezzati, Kevin Fenton, Maya Fraser, Thomas Fürst, Felix Greaves, Mark Green, David Gunnell, B. M. Hannigan, Roderick J. Hay, Simon I Hay, Harry Hemingway, Heidi J. Larson, Raimundas Lunevičius, Ronan A Lyons, Wagner Marcenes, Amanda J. Mason‐Jones, Fiona E. Matthews, Henrik Møller, Michele E Murdoch, Charles R. Newton, Neil Pearce, Frédéric B. Piel, Daniel Pope, Kazem Rahimi, Alina Rodriguez, Peter Scarborough, Austin E Schumacher, Ivy Shiue, Liam Smeeth, Alison Tedstone, Jonathan Valabhji, Hywel C Williams, Charles Wolfe, Anthony D. Woolf, Adrian Davis

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHealth disparities and outcomes
Établissements canadiensPopulation Health Research Institute
Organismes subventionnairesMedical Research CouncilPublic Health EnglandWellcome TrustBritish Heart FoundationInstitute for Health Metrics and EvaluationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Mots-clésEuropean unionHealth Survey for EnglandYears of potential life lostMedicineDemographyGeographyResidenceBurden of diseaseInequalitySocial deprivationDiseaseEnvironmental healthLife expectancyPopulationEconomic growthSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013), knowledge about health and its determinants has been integrated into a comparable framework to inform health policy. Outputs of this analysis are relevant to current policy questions in England and elsewhere, particularly on health inequalities. We use GBD 2013 data on mortality and causes of death, and disease and injury incidence and prevalence to analyse the burden of disease and injury in England as a whole, in English regions, and within each English region by deprivation quintile. We also assess disease and injury burden in England attributable to potentially preventable risk factors. England and the English regions are compared with the remaining constituent countries of the UK and with comparable countries in the European Union (EU) and beyond. METHODS: We extracted data from the GBD 2013 to compare mortality, causes of death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with a disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in England, the UK, and 18 other countries (the first 15 EU members [apart from the UK] and Australia, Canada, Norway, and the USA [EU15+]). We extended elements of the analysis to English regions, and subregional areas defined by deprivation quintile (deprivation areas). We used data split by the nine English regions (corresponding to the European boundaries of the Nomenclature for Territorial Statistics level 1 [NUTS 1] regions), and by quintile groups within each English region according to deprivation, thereby making 45 regional deprivation areas. Deprivation quintiles were defined by area of residence ranked at national level by Index of Multiple Deprivation score, 2010. Burden due to various risk factors is described for England using new GBD methodology to estimate independent and overlapping attributable risk for five tiers of behavioural, metabolic, and environmental risk factors. We present results for 306 causes and 2337 sequelae, and 79 risks or risk clusters. FINDINGS: Between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy from birth in England increased by 5·4 years (95% uncertainty interval 5·0-5·8) from 75·9 years (75·9-76·0) to 81·3 years (80·9-81·7); gains were greater for men than for women. Rates of age-standardised YLLs reduced by 41·1% (38·3-43·6), whereas DALYs were reduced by 23·8% (20·9-27·1), and YLDs by 1·4% (0·1-2·8). For these measures, England ranked better than the UK and the EU15+ means. Between 1990 and 2013, the range in life expectancy among 45 regional deprivation areas remained 8·2 years for men and decreased from 7·2 years in 1990 to 6·9 years in 2013 for women. In 2013, the leading cause of YLLs was ischaemic heart disease, and the leading cause of DALYs was low back and neck pain. Known risk factors accounted for 39·6% (37·7-41·7) of DALYs; leading behavioural risk factors were suboptimal diet (10·8% [9·1-12·7]) and tobacco (10·7% [9·4-12·0]). INTERPRETATION: Health in England is improving although substantial opportunities exist for further reductions in the burden of preventable disease. The gap in mortality rates between men and women has reduced, but marked health inequalities between the least deprived and most deprived areas remain. Declines in mortality have not been matched by similar declines in morbidity, resulting in people living longer with diseases. Health policies must therefore address the causes of ill health as well as those of premature mortality. Systematic action locally and nationally is needed to reduce risk exposures, support healthy behaviours, alleviate the severity of chronic disabling disorders, and mitigate the effects of socioeconomic deprivation. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Public Health England.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,124
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,247

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,010
Bibliométrie0,0110,016
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,343
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations361
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe LancetMême sujetHealth disparities and outcomesTravaux en français237 207