scholarly journals Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study?

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 31754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Neethling ◽  
Jennifer Jelsma ◽  
Lebogang Ramma ◽  
Helen Schneider ◽  
Debbie Bradshaw
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Disease ◽  
Household Survey ◽  
Global Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden ◽  
Disability Weights

scholarly journals Revised estimates of leprosy disability weights for assessing the global burden of disease: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. e0009209
Author(s):  
Shri Lak Nanjan Chandran ◽  
Anuj Tiwari ◽  
Anselmo Alves Lustosa ◽  
Betul Demir ◽  
Bob Bowers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Disease ◽  
Disease Burden ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Disability Weight ◽  
Global Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Disability Weights ◽  
Level Data

Background Leprosy is a chronic bacterial infection caused by Mycobacterium leprae, which may lead to physical disability, stigma, and discrimination. The chronicity of the disease and disabilities are the prime contributors to the disease burden of leprosy. The current figures of the disease burden in the 2017 global burden of disease study, however, are considered to be under-estimated. In this study, we aimed to systematically review the literature and perform individual patient data meta-analysis to estimate new disability weights for leprosy, using Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) data. Methodology/principal findings The search strategy included all major databases with no restriction on language, setting, study design, or year of publication. Studies on human populations that have been affected by leprosy and recorded the HRQOL with the Short form tool, were included. A consortium was formed with authors who could share the anonymous individual-level data of their study. Mean disability weight estimates, sorted by the grade of leprosy disability as defined by WHO, were estimated for individual participant data and pooled using multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Eight out of 14 studies from the review were included in the meta-analysis due to the availability of individual-level data (667 individuals). The overall estimated disability weight for grade 2 disability was 0.26 (95%CI: 0.18–0.34). For grade 1 disability the estimated weight was 0.19 (95%CI: 0.13–0.26) and for grade 0 disability it was 0.13 (95%CI: 0.06–0.19). The revised disability weight for grade 2 leprosy disability is four times higher than the published GBD 2017 weights for leprosy and the grade 1 disability weight is nearly twenty times higher. Conclusions/significance The global burden of leprosy is grossly underestimated. Revision of the current disability weights and inclusion of disability caused in individuals with grade 0 leprosy disability will contribute towards a more precise estimation of the global burden of leprosy.

Disability weights for vision disorders in Global Burden of Disease study

The Lancet ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 381 (9860) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh R Taylor ◽  
Jost B Jonas ◽  
Jill Keeffe ◽  
Janet Leasher ◽  
Kovin Naidoo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden ◽  
Vision Disorders ◽  
Disability Weights ◽  
Disease Study

Health Can Be Measured

2020 ◽  
pp. 61-73
Author(s):  
Joshua A. Salomon
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Disability Weights ◽  
Disease Study ◽  
Value Of Health

This chapter defends the view that it is possible to measure the quantity of health and not simply the value of health and that the 2010 Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) shows how this might be done. The author begins by offering a brief introduction to the GBD, focusing in particular on the evolution of measurement constructs and approaches pertaining to disability weights over the first several iterations of the GBD. The author then describes the new approach to disability weights measurement taken in the GBD 2010 study. Based on this, the chapter presents a conceptual framework and empirical evidence to support the claim that it is possible to measure quantities of health.

Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

The Lancet ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 380 (9859) ◽  
pp. 2129-2143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua A Salomon ◽  
Theo Vos ◽  
Daniel R Hogan ◽  
Michael Gagnon ◽  
Mohsen Naghavi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden ◽  
Measurement Study ◽  
Common Values ◽  
Disability Weights ◽  
Disease Study

scholarly journals The impact of worldwide, national and sub-national severity distributions in Burden of Disease studies: a case study of individual cancer types in Scotland

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant MA Wyper ◽  
Ian Grant ◽  
Eilidh Fletcher ◽  
Gerry McCartney ◽  
Diane L Stockton
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Disease ◽  
Weighted Average ◽  
Global Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Point Estimates ◽  
Disability Weights ◽  
Cancer Types ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Deprived Areas

AbstractAimThe main aim of this study was to consider the extent to which the use of worldwide severity distributions in Burden of Disease studies are influencing cross-country comparisons, by comparing Global Burden of Disease distributions with nationally derived severity distributions in Scotland for cancer types.MethodsWe obtained individual records from the Scottish Cancer Registry for 21 cancer types and linked these to registered deaths. We estimated prevalent cancer cases for 2016 and assigned each case to sequelae using Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016 study definitions. We compared the impact of using severity distributions based on GBD 2016, a Scotland-wide distribution, and a distribution specific to deprivation strata in Scotland, on the weighted-average disability weights for each cancer type in Scotland.ResultsThe relative difference in point estimates of weighted-average disability weights based on GBD 2016 worldwide severity distributions compared with Scottish national severity distributions resulted in overestimates in the majority of cancers (17 out of 21 cancer types). The largest overestimates were for gallbladder and biliary tract cancer (70.8%), oesophageal cancer (31.6%) and pancreatic cancer (31.2%). Furthermore, the use of weighted-average disability weights based on Scottish national severity distributions rather than sub-national Scottish severity distributions stratified by deprivation quintile overestimated weighted-average disability weights in the least deprived areas (16 out of 18 cancer types), and underestimated in the most deprived areas (16 out of 18 cancer types).ConclusionOur findings illustrate a bias in point estimates of weighted-average disability weights created using worldwide severity distributions. This bias would have led to the misrepresentation of non-fatal estimates of the burden of individual cancers, and underestimated the scale of socioeconomic inequality in this non-fatal burden. This highlights the importance of not interpreting non-fatal estimates of burden of disease too precisely, especially for sub-national estimates and those comparing populations when relying on data inputs from other countries. It is essential to ensure that any estimates are based upon the best available country-specific data at the lowest granularity.

The global burden of disease disability weights

The Lancet ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 355 (9220) ◽  
pp. 2079-2080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jelsma ◽  
Vimbai G Chivaura ◽  
Kudakwashe Mhundwa ◽  
Willy De Weerdt ◽  
Paul de Cock
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden Of Disease ◽  
Global Burden ◽  
Disability Weights
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document