9 research outputs found
Invisíveis aos olhos: Aumento de casos de feminicídio contra indígenas em Dourados
No full textA questão regional de Dourados desempenha um papel significativo nos casos de feminicídio contra mulheres indígenas. Como um dos maiores municípios do estado de Mato Grosso do Sul e uma região com alta concentração de comunidades indígenas.A questão regional de Dourados desempenha um papel significativo nos casos de feminicídio contra mulheres indígenas. Como um dos maiores municípios do estado de Mato Grosso do Sul e uma região com alta concentração de comunidades indígenas
levantamento bibliográfico em etapa de pesquisa
No full textRealizei o bibliográfico em etapa de pesquisa científicaRealizei o bibliográfico em etapa de pesquisa científic
Azulejos in Portugal with the historical scenes, so called painéis historiados in the 18th century
No full textThis bachelor thesis deals with the Portuguese historizing panels azulejos in the 18th century. Initially, it presents a preview of the Ciclo dos Mestres and the works of the painter of Azulejos Manuel dos Santos. In particular, it analyzes its set of panels in the entrance hall of the monastery São Vicente de Fora in Lisbon. The author of the thesis submits a detailed analysis of the depictions of historical events of the 12th century in order to defend their artistically historical credibility. Attention is also paid to the portraits of the kings of the Burgundy dynasty and the Bragança dynasty, testifying to historical circumstances. In the final part of the research carried out on the basis of personal knowledge, the author emphasizes the beneficial informative testimony of the depicted areas of Lisbon and Santarém. and the artistic settlement with the Spanish domination of the Habsburgs. Key words: Azulejos, historizing panels, São Vicente de Fora, Manuel dos Santos, Ciclo dos Mestre
Tradução comentada de um material instrucional de orientação sobre educação em sexualidade: direção português para Libras
No full textDissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Comunicação e Expressão, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos da Tradução, Florianópolis, 2024.Neste trabalho, apresenta-se uma tradução comentada, do português para a Língua Brasileira de Sinais (Libras), do papel para o vídeo, de parte de uma obra informativa e científica que tem como foco a educação em sexualidade. O material escolhido foi a Cartilha publicada pelo Núcleo de Estudos sobre Famílias e Instituições Educacionais e Sociais (NEFIES) com o título ?Educação em sexualidade na adolescência: uma cartilha para a comunidade escolar?, no ano de 2020. A pesquisa justifica-se pela lacuna de estudo sobre a educação bilíngue Libras-português para surdos no âmbito da temática de sexualidade, o que requer o amadurecimento e produção de material didático-pedagógico em Libras. O objetivo foi analisar as escolhas tradutórias de material com tema ?Educação em sexualidade? a partir da construção enunciativa-discursiva e a posição axiológica da própria tradutora-autora surda, por meio da análise da tradução comentada. Este trabalho fundamenta-se na perspectiva dialógica da linguagem (Bakhtin, 2016; Volóchinov, 2017) e no conceito de tradução como um acordo dialógico (Kumar, 2018). Empreende-se uma pesquisa de estudo de caso, adotando a tradução comentada como procedimento de pesquisa e utiliza-se o diário de tradução como registro do processo e a documentação para retomada dos materiais consultados quando da realização da tradução (Albres, 2022). Acredita-se que as reflexões e experiências construídas a partir da tradução vivida contribuem para a compreensão dos processos de construção de sentidos e reelaboração por que passam uma tradutora surda. Aborda-se a questão terminológica da tradução e o trabalho de busca documental do tradutor como tarefas essenciais para a qualificação da tradução, assim como a adoção de uma tradução pelo sentido do discurso, aproximando da linguagem a que a população alvo da tradução está habituada.Abstract: This work presents a commented translation from Portuguese into Brazilian Sign Language (Libras), thus from paper into video, of part of an informative and scientifical material about sexuality education. The selected material was a leaflet published by the Nucleus of Studies about Families and Educational and Social Institutions (NEFIES, in the Portuguese abbreviation). The leaflet was from 2020 and presented the following title: ?Sexuality Education in adolescence: a leaflet for the school community?. The research is justified due to a lack of studies about bilingual education between Libras and Portuguese to Deaf people in the area of sexuality, which requires a maturation process and the production of didactic-pedagogical material in Libras. The objective of this study was to analyze the translation choices of this material about ?Sexuality education? from the enunciative-discursive construction and the axiological position of the Deaf translator-author herself, through the analysis of the commented translation. This study is based on the dialogical perspective of language (Bakhtin, 2016; Volóchinov, 2017) and on the concept that perceives translation as a dialogical agreement (Kumar, 2018). A case study was implemented, using the commented translation as the research procedure and a translation journal as a form of registration of the process, as well as a documentation for the retrieval of the consulted materials during the translation process (Albres, 2022). We believe that the reflections and experiences derived from the translation contribute to the comprehension of the construction of meanings and re-elaboration that a Deaf translator goes through. We also address the issue of terminology and the documentary research work of the translator, which are essential tasks for the translation qualification, as well as the adoption of a translation based on the meaning of the discourse, bringing it closer to the language that the target population of the translation is used to
Distant Non-Obvious Mutations Influence the Activity of a Hyperthermophilic Pyrococcusfuriosus Phosphoglucose Isomerase
No full textThe cupin-type phosphoglucose isomerase (PfPGI) from the hyperthermophilic archaeon Pyrococcus furiosus catalyzes the reversible isomerization of glucose-6-phosphate to fructose-6-phosphate. We investigated PfPGI using protein-engineering bioinformatics tools to select functionally-important residues based on correlated mutation analyses. A pair of amino acids in the periphery of PfPGI was found to be the dominant co-evolving mutation. The position of these selected residues was found to be non-obvious to conventional protein engineering methods. We designed a small smart library of variants by substituting the co-evolved pair and screened their biochemical activity, which revealed their functional relevance. Four mutants were further selected from the library for purification, measurement of their specific activity, crystal structure determination, and metal cofactor coordination analysis. Though the mutant structures and metal cofactor coordination were strikingly similar, variations in their activity correlated with their fine-tuned dynamics and solvent access regulation. Alternative, small smart libraries for enzyme optimization are suggested by our approach, which is able to identify non-obvious yet beneficial mutations
a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
No full textFunding Information: Research reported in this publication was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1152504); Queensland Department of Health, Australia; UK Department of Health and Social Care; the Norwegian Institute of Public Health; St Jude Children's Research Hospital; and the New Zealand Ministry of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders. Data for this research was provided by MEASURE Evaluation, funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of USAID, the US Government, or MEASURE Evaluation. This study uses a dataset provided by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) based on data provided by WHO and Ministries of Health from the affected countries. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the ECDC. The accuracy of the authors' statistical analysis and the findings they report are not the responsibility of ECDC. ECDC is not responsible for conclusions or opinions drawn from the data provided. ECDC is not responsible for the correctness of the data and for data management, data merging, and data collation after provision of the data. ECDC shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data. Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) is an international study carried out in collaboration with WHO/EURO. The international coordinator of the 1997\u201398, 2001\u201302, 2005\u201306, and 2009\u201310 surveys was Candace Currie and the Data Bank Manager for the 1997\u201398 survey was Bente Wold, whereas for the following survey Oddrun Samda was the databank manager. A list of principal investigators in each country can be found at http://www.hbsc.org. Parts of this material are based on data and information provided by the Canadian institute for Health Information. However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions and statements expressed herein are those of the author and not those of the Canadian Institute for Health information. The data reported here have been supplied by the US Renal Data System (USRDS). The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and in no way should be seen as an official policy or interpretation of the US Government. The data used in this paper come from the 2009\u201310 Ghana Socioeconomic Panel Study Survey which is a nationally representative survey of over 5,000 households in Ghana. The survey is a joint effort undertaken by the Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER) at the University of Ghana, and the Economic Growth Centre (EGC) at Yale University. It was funded by the Economic Growth Center. At the same time, ISSER and the EGC are not responsible for the estimations reported by the analyst(s). The harmonised dataset was downloaded from the Global Dietary Database (GDD) website ( https://www.globaldietarydatabase.org/). The Canadian Community Health Survey - Nutrition (CCHS-Nutrition), 2015 is available online ( https://www.globaldietarydatabase.org/management/microdata-surveys/650). The harmonisation of the original dataset was performed by GDD. The data was adapted from Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey: Public Use Microdata File, 2015/2016 (Statistics Canada. CCHS-Nutrition, 2015); this does not constitute an endorsement by Statistics Canada of this product. The data is used under the terms of the Statistics Canada Open Licence (Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada Open Licence. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/reference/licence). The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740) and is conducted by the University of Michigan. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics granted the researchers access to relevant data in accordance with license no. SLN2014-3-170, after subjecting data to processing aiming to preserve the confidentiality of individual data in accordance with the General Statistics Law - 2000. The researchers are solely responsible for the conclusions and inferences drawn upon available data. The results and conclusions are mine and not those of Eurostat, the European Commission, or any of the national statistical authorities whose data have been used. This manuscript is based on data collected and shared by the International Vaccine Institute (IVI) from an original study it conducted with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This paper uses data from SHARE Waves 1, 2, 3 (SHARELIFE), 4, 5 and 6 (dois: 10.6103/SHARE.w1.611,10.6103/SHARE.w2.611, 10.6103/SHARE.w3.611, 10.6103/SHARE.w4.611, 10.6103/SHARE.w5.611, 10.6103/SHARE.w6.611), see B\u00F6rsch-Supan et al. (2013) for methodological details. The SHARE data collection has been primarily funded by the European Commission through FP5 (QLK6-CT-2001-00360), FP6 (SHARE-I3: RII-CT-2006-062193, COMPARE: CIT5-CT-2005-028857, SHARELIFE: CIT4-CT-2006- 028812) and FP7 (SHARE-PREP: N\u00B0211909, SHARE-LEAP: N\u00B0227822, SHARE M4: N\u00B0261982). Additional funding from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, the US National Institute on Aging (U01_AG09740-13S2, P01_AG005842, P01_AG08291, P30_AG12815, R21_AG025169, Y1-AG-4553-01, IAG_BSR06-11, OGHA_04-064, HHSN271201300071C) and from various national funding sources is gratefully acknowledged (see www.share-project.org). This paper uses data from the Algeria - Setif and Mostaganem 2003 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health, Population and Hospital Reform (Algeria) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Algeria 2016-2017 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Algeria) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the American Samoa 2004 STEPS survey, implemented by Department of Health (American Samoa) and Monash University (Australia) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Armenia 2016 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Botswana) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Azerbaijan 2017 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Azerbaijan) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Bangladesh 2018 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Bangladesh) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Barbados 2007 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Barbados) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Belarus 2016-2017 STEPS survey, implemented by Republican Scientific and Practical Center of Medical Technologies, Informatization, Management and Economics of Public Health (Belarus) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Benin - Littoral 2007 STEPS survey, the Benin 2008 STEPS survey, and the Benin 2015 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Benin) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Bhutan - Thimphu 2007 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Bhutan) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Bhutan 2014 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Bhutan) with the support of the World Health Organization. This paper uses data from the Botswana 2014 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Armenia), National Institute of Health with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Brunei 2015-2016 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Brunei) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Cambodia 2010 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Cambodia) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Cameroon 2003 STEPS survey, implemented by Health of Populations in Transition (HoPiT) Research Group (Cameroon) and Ministry of Public Health (Cameroon) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Cape Verde 2007 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health, National Statistics Office with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Central African Republic - Bangui 2010 STEPS survey and Central African Republic - Bangui and Ombella M'Poko 2016 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health and Population (Central African Republic) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Comoros 2011 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Comoros) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Congo - Brazzaville 2004 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health, Population and Hospital Reform (Algeria) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Cook Islands 2003\u20132004 survey and Cook Islands 2013\u20132015 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Cook Islands) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Eritrea 2010 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Eritrea) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Fiji 2002 STEPS survey, implemented by Fiji School of Medicine, Menzies Center for Population Health Research, University of Tasmania (Australia), Ministry of Health (Fiji) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Fiji 2011 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Fiji) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Georgia 2016 STEPS survey, implemented by National Center for Disease Control and Public Health (Georgia) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Ghana - Greater Accra Region 2006 STEPS survey, implemented by Ghana Health Service with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Guniea 2009 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Public Health and Hygiene (Guinea) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Guyana 2016 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Guyana) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Iraq 2015 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Iraq) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Kenya 2015 STEPS survey, implemented by Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Health (Kenya) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Kiribati 2004\u20132006 STEPS survey and the Kiribati 2016 survey, implemented by Ministry of Health and Medical Services (Kiribati) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Kuwait 2006 STEPS survey and the Kuwait 2014 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Kuwait) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Kyrgyzstan 2013 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Kyrgyzstan) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Laos 2013 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Laos) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Lebanon 2016-2017 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Public Health (Lebanon) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Lesotho 2012 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Lesotho) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Liberia 2011 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Liberia) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Libya 2009 STEPS survey, implemented by Secretariat of Health and Environment (Libya) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Malawi 2009 STEPS survey and Malawi 2017 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Malawi) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Mali 2007 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Mali) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Marshall Islands 2002 STEPS survey and the Marshall Islands 2017-2018 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Marshall Islands) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Mauritania- Nouakchott 2006 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Mauritania) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Micronesia - Chuuk 2006 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Palestine) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Micronesia - Chuuk 2016 STEPS survey, implemented by Chuuk Department of Health Services (Micronesia), Department of Health and Social Affairs (Micronesia) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Micronesia - Pohnpei 2002 STEPS survey, implemented by Centre for Physical Activity and Health, University of Sydney (Australia), Department of Health and Social Affairs (Micronesia), Fiji School of Medicine, Micronesia Human Resources Development Center, Pohnpei State Department of Health Services with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Micronesia - Pohnpei 2008 STEPS survey, implemented by FSM Department of Health and Social Affairs, Pohnpei State Department of Health Services with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Micronesia - Yap 2009 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (Micronesia) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Micronesia- Kosrae 2009 STEPS survey, implemented by FSM Department of Health and Social Affairs with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Moldova 2013 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Moldova) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Mongolia 2005 STEPS survey, the Mongolia 2009 STEPS survey, and the Mongolia 2013 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Mongolia) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Morocco 2017 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Morocco) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Mozambique 2005 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Mozambique) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Myanmar 2014 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Myanmar) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Nauru 2004 STEPS survey and the Nauru 2015\u20132016 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Nauru) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Niger 2007 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Niger) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Palau 2011-2013 STEPS survey and the Palau 2016 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Palau) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Palestine 2010-2011 STEPS survey, implemented by Chuuk Department of Health Services (Micronesia), Department of Health and Social Affairs (Micronesia) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Qatar 2012 STEPS survey, implemented by Supreme Council of Health (Qatar) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Rwanda 2012-2013 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Rwanda) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Samoa 2002 STEPS survey and the Samoa 2013 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Samoa) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Sao Tome and Principe 2008 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Sao Tome and Principe) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Seychelles 2004 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Seychelles) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Solomon Islands 2005\u20132006 STEPS survey and the Solomon Islands 2015 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health and Medical Services (Solomon Islands) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Sri Lanka 2014\u20132015 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Sri Lanka) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Sudan 2016 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Sudan) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Swaziland 2007 STEPS survey and the Swaziland 2014 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Swaziland) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Tajikistan 2016 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Tajikistan) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Tanzania - Zanzibar 2011 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Zanzibar) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Tanzania 2012 STEPS survey, implemented by National Institute for Medical Research (Tanzania) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Timor-Leste 2014 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Timor-Leste) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Togo 2010\u20132011 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Togo) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Tokelau 2005 STEPS survey, implemented by Tokelau Department of Health, Fiji School of Medicine with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Tonga 2004 STEPS survey and the Tonga 2011\u20132012 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Tonga) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Tuvalu 2015 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Tuvalu), with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Uganda 2014 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Uganda) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Uruguay 2006 STEPS survey and the Uruguay 2013-2014 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Uruguay) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Vanuatu 2011 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Vanuatu) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Viet Nam 2009 STEPS survey and the Viet Nam 2015 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Viet Nam) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Virgin Islands, British 2009 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health and Social Development (British Virgin Islands) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Zambia - Lusaka 2008 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Zambia) with the support of WHO. This paper uses data from the Zambia 2017 STEPS survey, implemented by Ministry of Health (Zambia) with the support of WHO. This research used data from the Chile National Health Survey 2003, 2009\u201310, and 2016\u201317. The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Health, survey copyright owner, for allowing them to have the database. All results of the study are those of the author and in no way committed to the Ministry. This research used information from the Health Surveys for epidemiological surveillance of the Undersecretary of Public Health. The authors thank the Ministry of Health of Chile, having allowed them to have access to the database. All the results obtained from the study or research are the responsibility of the authors and in no way compromise that institution. This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J Richard Udry, Peter S Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524, USA ( [email protected]). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis. This study has been realised using the data collected by the Swiss Household Panel (SHP), which is based at the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences FORS. The project is financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation. We thank the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey, RLMS-HSE, conducted by the National Research University Higher School of Economics and ZAO Demoscope together with Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Institute of Sociology RAS for making these data available. Editorial note: The Lancet Group takes a neutral position with respect to territorial claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: 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-se
Changing life expectancy in European countries 1990–2021: a subanalysis of causes and risk factors from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
No full textBackground: Decades of steady improvements in life expectancy in Europe slowed down from around 2011, well before the COVID-19 pandemic, for reasons which remain disputed. We aimed to assess how changes in risk factors and cause-specific death rates in different European countries related to changes in life expectancy in those countries before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We used data and methods from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2021 to compare changes in life expectancy at birth, causes of death, and population exposure to risk factors in 16 European Economic Area countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden) and the four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) for three time periods: 1990–2011, 2011–19, and 2019–21. Changes in life expectancy and causes of death were estimated with an established life expectancy cause-specific decomposition method, and compared with summary exposure values of risk factors for the major causes of death influencing life expectancy. Findings: All countries showed mean annual improvements in life expectancy in both 1990–2011 (overall mean 0·23 years [95% uncertainty interval [UI] 0·23 to 0·24]) and 2011–19 (overall mean 0·15 years [0·13 to 0·16]). The rate of improvement was lower in 2011–19 than in 1990–2011 in all countries except for Norway, where the mean annual increase in life expectancy rose from 0·21 years (95% UI 0·20 to 0·22) in 1990–2011 to 0·23 years (0·21 to 0·26) in 2011–19 (difference of 0·03 years). In other countries, the difference in mean annual improvement between these periods ranged from –0·01 years in Iceland (0·19 years [95% UI 0·16 to 0·21] vs 0·18 years [0·09 to 0·26]), to –0·18 years in England (0·25 years [0·24 to 0·25] vs 0·07 years [0·06 to 0·08]). In 2019–21, there was an overall decrease in mean annual life expectancy across all countries (overall mean –0·18 years [95% UI –0·22 to –0·13]), with all countries having an absolute fall in life expectancy except for Ireland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, which showed marginal improvement in life expectancy, and Belgium, which showed no change in life expectancy. Across countries, the causes of death responsible for the largest improvements in life expectancy from 1990 to 2011 were cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms. Deaths from cardiovascular diseases were the primary driver of reductions in life expectancy improvements during 2011–19, and deaths from respiratory infections and other COVID-19 pandemic-related outcomes were responsible for the decreases in life expectancy during 2019–21. Deaths from cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms in 2019 were attributable to high systolic blood pressure, dietary risks, tobacco smoke, high LDL cholesterol, high BMI, occupational risks, high alcohol use, and other risks including low physical activity. Exposure to these major risk factors differed by country, with trends of increasing exposure to high BMI and decreasing exposure to tobacco smoke observed in all countries during 1990–2021. Interpretation: The countries that best maintained improvements in life expectancy after 2011 (Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden) did so through better maintenance of reductions in mortality from cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms, underpinned by decreased exposures to major risks, possibly mitigated by government policies. The continued improvements in life expectancy in five countries during 2019–21 indicate that these countries were better prepared to withstand the COVID-19 pandemic. By contrast, countries with the greatest slowdown in life expectancy improvements after 2011 went on to have some of the largest decreases in life expectancy in 2019–21. These findings suggest that government policies that improve population health also build resilience to future shocks. Such policies include reducing population exposure to major upstream risks for cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms, such as harmful diets and low physical activity, tackling the commercial determinants of poor health, and ensuring access to affordable health services. Funding: Gates Foundation. © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licens
Burden of disease scenarios for 204 countries and territories, 2022–2050: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
No full textBackground: Future trends in disease burden and drivers of health are of great interest to policy makers and the public at large. This information can be used for policy and long-term health investment, planning, and prioritisation. We have expanded and improved upon previous forecasts produced as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) and provide a reference forecast (the most likely future), and alternative scenarios assessing disease burden trajectories if selected sets of risk factors were eliminated from current levels by 2050. Methods: Using forecasts of major drivers of health such as the Socio-demographic Index (SDI; a composite measure of lag-distributed income per capita, mean years of education, and total fertility under 25 years of age) and the full set of risk factor exposures captured by GBD, we provide cause-specific forecasts of mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) by age and sex from 2022 to 2050 for 204 countries and territories, 21 GBD regions, seven super-regions, and the world. All analyses were done at the cause-specific level so that only risk factors deemed causal by the GBD comparative risk assessment influenced future trajectories of mortality for each disease. Cause-specific mortality was modelled using mixed-effects models with SDI and time as the main covariates, and the combined impact of causal risk factors as an offset in the model. At the all-cause mortality level, we captured unexplained variation by modelling residuals with an autoregressive integrated moving average model with drift attenuation. These all-cause forecasts constrained the cause-specific forecasts at successively deeper levels of the GBD cause hierarchy using cascading mortality models, thus ensuring a robust estimate of cause-specific mortality. For non-fatal measures (eg, low back pain), incidence and prevalence were forecasted from mixed-effects models with SDI as the main covariate, and YLDs were computed from the resulting prevalence forecasts and average disability weights from GBD. Alternative future scenarios were constructed by replacing appropriate reference trajectories for risk factors with hypothetical trajectories of gradual elimination of risk factor exposure from current levels to 2050. The scenarios were constructed from various sets of risk factors: environmental risks (Safer Environment scenario), risks associated with communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases (CMNNs; Improved Childhood Nutrition and Vaccination scenario), risks associated with major non-communicable diseases (NCDs; Improved Behavioural and Metabolic Risks scenario), and the combined effects of these three scenarios. Using the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways climate scenarios SSP2-4.5 as reference and SSP1-1.9 as an optimistic alternative in the Safer Environment scenario, we accounted for climate change impact on health by using the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change temperature forecasts and published trajectories of ambient air pollution for the same two scenarios. Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy were computed using standard methods. The forecasting framework includes computing the age-sex-specific future population for each location and separately for each scenario. 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for each individual future estimate were derived from the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles of distributions generated from propagating 500 draws through the multistage computational pipeline. Findings: In the reference scenario forecast, global and super-regional life expectancy increased from 2022 to 2050, but improvement was at a slower pace than in the three decades preceding the COVID-19 pandemic (beginning in 2020). Gains in future life expectancy were forecasted to be greatest in super-regions with comparatively low life expectancies (such as sub-Saharan Africa) compared with super-regions with higher life expectancies (such as the high-income super-region), leading to a trend towards convergence in life expectancy across locations between now and 2050. At the super-region level, forecasted healthy life expectancy patterns were similar to those of life expectancies. Forecasts for the reference scenario found that health will improve in the coming decades, with all-cause age-standardised DALY rates decreasing in every GBD super-region. The total DALY burden measured in counts, however, will increase in every super-region, largely a function of population ageing and growth. We also forecasted that both DALY counts and age-standardised DALY rates will continue to shift from CMNNs to NCDs, with the most pronounced shifts occurring in sub-Saharan Africa (60·1% [95% UI 56·8–63·1] of DALYs were from CMNNs in 2022 compared with 35·8% [31·0–45·0] in 2050) and south Asia (31·7% [29·2–34·1] to 15·5% [13·7–17·5]). This shift is reflected in the leading global causes of DALYs, with the top four causes in 2050 being ischaemic heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, compared with 2022, with ischaemic heart disease, neonatal disorders, stroke, and lower respiratory infections at the top. The global proportion of DALYs due to YLDs likewise increased from 33·8% (27·4–40·3) to 41·1% (33·9–48·1) from 2022 to 2050, demonstrating an important shift in overall disease burden towards morbidity and away from premature death. The largest shift of this kind was forecasted for sub-Saharan Africa, from 20·1% (15·6–25·3) of DALYs due to YLDs in 2022 to 35·6% (26·5–43·0) in 2050. In the assessment of alternative future scenarios, the combined effects of the scenarios (Safer Environment, Improved Childhood Nutrition and Vaccination, and Improved Behavioural and Metabolic Risks scenarios) demonstrated an important decrease in the global burden of DALYs in 2050 of 15·4% (13·5–17·5) compared with the reference scenario, with decreases across super-regions ranging from 10·4% (9·7–11·3) in the high-income super-region to 23·9% (20·7–27·3) in north Africa and the Middle East. The Safer Environment scenario had its largest decrease in sub-Saharan Africa (5·2% [3·5–6·8]), the Improved Behavioural and Metabolic Risks scenario in north Africa and the Middle East (23·2% [20·2–26·5]), and the Improved Nutrition and Vaccination scenario in sub-Saharan Africa (2·0% [–0·6 to 3·6]). Interpretation: Globally, life expectancy and age-standardised disease burden were forecasted to improve between 2022 and 2050, with the majority of the burden continuing to shift from CMNNs to NCDs. That said, continued progress on reducing the CMNN disease burden will be dependent on maintaining investment in and policy emphasis on CMNN disease prevention and treatment. Mostly due to growth and ageing of populations, the number of deaths and DALYs due to all causes combined will generally increase. By constructing alternative future scenarios wherein certain risk exposures are eliminated by 2050, we have shown that opportunities exist to substantially improve health outcomes in the future through concerted efforts to prevent exposure to well established risk factors and to expand access to key health interventions. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licens
Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants
No full textZhou B, Carrillo-Larco RM, Danaei G, et al. Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants. LANCET. 2021;398(10304):957-980.Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30-79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30-79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306-359) million women and 317 (292-344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584-668) million women and 652 (604-698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55-62) of women and 49% (46-52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43-51) of women and 38% (35-41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20-27) for women and 18% (16-21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings. Copyright (C) 2021 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier
