230 research outputs found
Health states for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder within the Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study
No full textAbstract A comprehensive revision of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is expected to be completed in 2012. This study utilizes a broad range of improved methods for assessing burden, including closer attention to empirically derived estimates of disability. The aim of this paper is to describe how GBD health states were derived for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. These will be used in deriving health state-specific disability estimates. A literature review was first conducted to settle on a parsimonious set of health states for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. A second review was conducted to investigate the proportion of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder cases experiencing these health states. These were pooled using a quality-effects model to estimate the overall proportion of cases in each state. The two schizophrenia health states were acute (predominantly positive symptoms) and residual (predominantly negative symptoms). The three bipolar disorder health states were depressive, manic, and residual. Based on estimates from six studies, 63% (38%-82%) of schizophrenia cases were in an acute state and 37% (18%-62%) were in a residual state. Another six studies were identified from which 23% (10%-39%) of bipolar disorder cases were in a manic state, 27% (11%-47%) were in a depressive state, and 50% (30%-70%) were in a residual state. This literature review revealed salient gaps in the literature that need to be addressed in future research. The pooled estimates are indicative only and more data are required to generate more definitive estimates. That said, rather than deriving burden estimates that fail to capture the changes in disability within schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, the derived proportions and their wide uncertainty intervals will be used in deriving disability estimates.</p
Burden of Depressive Disorders by Country, Sex, Age, and Year: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010
No full textBackground:Depressive disorders were a leading cause of burden in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 1990 and 2000 studies. Here, we analyze the burden of depressive disorders in GBD 2010 and present severity proportions, burden by country, region, age, sex, and year, as well as burden of depressive disorders as a risk factor for suicide and ischemic heart disease.Methods and Findings:Burden was calculated for major depressive disorder (MDD) and dysthymia. A systematic review of epidemiological data was conducted. The data were pooled using a Bayesian meta-regression. Disability weights from population survey data quantified the severity of health loss from depressive disorders. These weights were used to calculate years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability adjusted life years (DALYs). Separate DALYs were estimated for suicide and ischemic heart disease attributable to depressive disorders.Depressive disorders were the second leading cause of YLDs in 2010. MDD accounted for 8.2% (5.9%-10.8%) of global YLDs and dysthymia for 1.4% (0.9%-2.0%). Depressive disorders were a leading cause of DALYs even though no mortality was attributed to them as the underlying cause. MDD accounted for 2.5% (1.9%-3.2%) of global DALYs and dysthymia for 0.5% (0.3%-0.6%). There was more regional variation in burden for MDD than for dysthymia; with higher estimates in females, and adults of working age. Whilst burden increased by 37.5% between 1990 and 2010, this was due to population growth and ageing. MDD explained 16 million suicide DALYs and almost 4 million ischemic heart disease DALYs. This attributable burden would increase the overall burden of depressive disorders from 3.0% (2.2%-3.8%) to 3.8% (3.0%-4.7%) of global DALYs.Conclusions:GBD 2010 identified depressive disorders as a leading cause of burden. MDD was also a contributor of burden allocated to suicide and ischemic heart disease. These findings emphasize the importance of including depressive disorders as a public-health priority and implementing cost-effective interventions to reduce its burden.Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Challenging the myth of an "epidemic" of common mental disorders: trends in the global prevalence of anxiety and depression between 1990 and 2010
No full textBackground: Anxiety disorders and major depressive disorder (MDD) are common and disabling mental disorders. This paper aims to test the hypothesis that common mental disorders have become more prevalent over the past two decades. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of prevalence, remission, duration, and excess mortality studies for anxiety disorders and MDD and then used a Bayesian meta-regression approach to estimate point prevalence for 1990, 2005, and 2010. We also conducted a post-hoc search for studies that used the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) as a measure of psychological distress and tested for trends to present a qualitative comparison of study findings Results: This study found no evidence for an increased prevalence of anxiety disorders or MDD. While the crude number of cases increased by 36%, this was explained by population growth and changing age structures. Point prevalence of anxiety disorders was estimated at 3.8% (3.6-4.1%) in 1990 and 4.0% (3.7-4.2%) in 2010. The prevalence of MDD was unchanged at 4.4% in 1990 (4.2-4.7%) and 2010 (4.1-4.7%). However, 8 of the 11 GHQ studies found a significant increase in psychological distress over time. Conclusions: The perceived "epidemic" of common mental disorders is most likely explained by the increasing numbers of affected patients driven by increasing population sizes. Additional factors that may explain this perception include the higher rates of psychological distress as measured using symptom checklists, greater public awareness, and the use of terms such as anxiety and depression in a context where they do not represent clinical disorders. Depression and Anxiety 31: 506-516, 2014. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc
The burdens of mental disorders in the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 and the World Mental Health surveys: similarities, differences, and implications for mental health research
No full textA systematic review of the global distribution and availability of prevalence data for bipolar disorder
No full textBackground: The multiple factors likely to influence estimates of the prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorders (BSD) make it difficult to determine its actual prevalence. A systematic review was undertaken to explore the availability and quality of epidemiological data for BSD. This will inform the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study
Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
No full textBackground: Detailed, comprehensive, and timely reporting on population health by underlying causes of disability and premature death is crucial to understanding and responding to complex patterns of disease and injury burden over time and across age groups, sexes, and locations. The availability of disease burden estimates can promote evidence-based interventions that enable public health researchers, policy makers, and other professionals to implement strategies that can mitigate diseases. It can also facilitate more rigorous monitoring of progress towards national and international health targets, such as the Sustainable Development Goals. For three decades, the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) has filled that need. A global network of collaborators contributed to the production of GBD 2021 by providing, reviewing, and analysing all available data. GBD estimates are updated routinely with additional data and refined analytical methods. GBD 2021 presents, for the first time, estimates of health loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The GBD 2021 disease and injury burden analysis estimated years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries using 100 983 data sources. Data were extracted from vital registration systems, verbal autopsies, censuses, household surveys, disease-specific registries, health service contact data, and other sources. YLDs were calculated by multiplying cause-age-sex-location-year-specific prevalence of sequelae by their respective disability weights, for each disease and injury. YLLs were calculated by multiplying cause-age-sex-location-year-specific deaths by the standard life expectancy at the age that death occurred. DALYs were calculated by summing YLDs and YLLs. HALE estimates were produced using YLDs per capita and age-specific mortality rates by location, age, sex, year, and cause. 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated for all final estimates as the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles values of 500 draws. Uncertainty was propagated at each step of the estimation process. Counts and age-standardised rates were calculated globally, for seven super-regions, 21 regions, 204 countries and territories (including 21 countries with subnational locations), and 811 subnational locations, from 1990 to 2021. Here we report data for 2010 to 2021 to highlight trends in disease burden over the past decade and through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: Global DALYs increased from 2·63 billion (95% UI 2·44–2·85) in 2010 to 2·88 billion (2·64–3·15) in 2021 for all causes combined. Much of this increase in the number of DALYs was due to population growth and ageing, as indicated by a decrease in global age-standardised all-cause DALY rates of 14·2% (95% UI 10·7–17·3) between 2010 and 2019. Notably, however, this decrease in rates reversed during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, with increases in global age-standardised all-cause DALY rates since 2019 of 4·1% (1·8–6·3) in 2020 and 7·2% (4·7–10·0) in 2021. In 2021, COVID-19 was the leading cause of DALYs globally (212·0 million [198·0–234·5] DALYs), followed by ischaemic heart disease (188·3 million [176·7–198·3]), neonatal disorders (186·3 million [162·3–214·9]), and stroke (160·4 million [148·0–171·7]). However, notable health gains were seen among other leading communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional (CMNN) diseases. Globally between 2010 and 2021, the age-standardised DALY rates for HIV/AIDS decreased by 47·8% (43·3–51·7) and for diarrhoeal diseases decreased by 47·0% (39·9–52·9). Non-communicable diseases contributed 1·73 billion (95% UI 1·54–1·94) DALYs in 2021, with a decrease in age-standardised DALY rates since 2010 of 6·4% (95% UI 3·5–9·5). Between 2010 and 2021, among the 25 leading Level 3 causes, age-standardised DALY rates increased most substantially for anxiety disorders (16·7% [14·0–19·8]), depressive disorders (16·4% [11·9–21·3]), and diabetes (14·0% [10·0–17·4]). Age-standardised DALY rates due to injuries decreased globally by 24·0% (20·7–27·2) between 2010 and 2021, although improvements were not uniform across locations, ages, and sexes. Globally, HALE at birth improved slightly, from 61·3 years (58·6–63·6) in 2010 to 62·2 years (59·4–64·7) in 2021. However, despite this overall increase, HALE decreased by 2·2% (1·6–2·9) between 2019 and 2021. Interpretation: Putting the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of causes of health loss is crucial to understanding its impact and ensuring that health funding and policy address needs at both local and global levels through cost-effective and evidence-based interventions. A global epidemiological transition remains underway. Our findings suggest that prioritising non-communicable disease prevention and treatment policies, as well as strengthening health systems, continues to be crucially important. The progress on reducing the burden of CMNN diseases must not stall; although global trends are improving, the burden of CMNN diseases remains unacceptably high. Evidence-based interventions will help save the lives of young children and mothers and improve the overall health and economic conditions of societies across the world. Governments and multilateral organisations should prioritise pandemic preparedness planning alongside efforts to reduce the burden of diseases and injuries that will strain resources in the coming decades. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Long-term outcomes of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder: a\ua0systematic review and meta-analysis
No full textObjective: Attention-defidt/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and conduct disorder (CD) are common externalizing disorders. Despite previous research demonstrating that both are longitudinally associated with adverse outcomes, there have been no systematic reviews examining all of the available evidence linking ADHD and CD with a range of health and psychosocial outcomes
Systematic reviews: inducting research students into scholarly conversations?
No full textFirst paragraph: Systematic reviews are common in disciplines such as medicine, nursing, and health sciences and students are increasingly being encouraged to conduct them as a component of their thesis (Pickering & Byrne, 2014). Fortunately, the tedious old days of writing a thesis by gathering mountains of hard-copy papers are long behind us. Privileged modern-day students can access the latest research papers through a simple tap of the keyboard – connecting to databases through the Internet. The ease of accessing scientific papers makes the process of conducting systematic reviews more streamlined and efficient. However, undertaking a systematic review can present many challenges, particularly for novice researchers, and the trade-offs between systematic and non-systematic literature reviews are still debated in research communities (Gough, 2013). In this piece, we discuss the challenges in conducting systematic reviews in the context of our research experience as students in a health science discipline. In doing so, we describe how the process of learning to conduct systematic reviews has helped to induct us into scholarly conversations
- …
