Health, well-being, and measuring the burden of disease

Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis

There is growing interest in extending the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year framework beyond health. Using a critical interpretive synthesis approach, the objective was to review peer-reviewed literature that has discussed non-health outcomes within the context of quality-adjusted life-years and synthesise information into a thematic framework. Papers were identified through searches conducted in Web of Science, using forward citation searching. A critical interpretive synthesis allows for the development of interpretations (synthetic constructs) that go beyond those offered in the original sources. The final output of a critical interpretive synthesis is the synthesising argument, which integrates evidence from across studies into a coherent thematic framework. A concept map was developed to show the relationships between different types of non-health benefits. The critical interpretive synthesis was based on 99 papers. The thematic framework was constructed around four themes: (1) benefits affecting well-being (subjective well-being, psychological well-being, capability and empowerment); (2) benefits derived from the process of healthcare delivery; (3) benefits beyond the recipient of care (spillover effects, externalities, option value and distributional benefits); and (4) benefits beyond the healthcare sector. There is a wealth of research concerning non-health benefits and the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year. Further dialogue and debate are necessary to address conceptual and normative challenges, to explore the societal willingness to sacrifice health for benefits beyond health and to consider the equity implications of different courses of action.

An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations

Economic evidence is increasingly being used for informing health policies. However, the underlining principles of health economic analyses are not always fully understood by non-health economists, and inappropriate types of analyses, as well as inconsistent methodologies, may be being used for informing health policy decisions. In addition, there is a lack of open access information and methodological guidance targeted to public health professionals, particularly those based in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction to economic evaluations for public health professionals with a focus on LMIC settings. We cover the main principles underlining the most common types of full economic evaluations used in healthcare decision making in the context of priority setting (namely cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses), and outline their key features, strengths and weaknesses. It is envisioned that this will help those conducting such analyses, as well as stakeholders that need to interpret their output, gain a greater understanding of these methods and help them select/distinguish between the different approaches. In particular, we highlight the need for greater awareness of the methods used to place a monetary value on the health benefits of interventions, and the potential for such estimates to be misinterpreted. Specifically, the economic benefits reported are typically an approximation, summarising the health benefits experienced by a population monetarily in terms of individual preferences or potential productivity gains, rather than actual realisable or fiscal monetary benefits to payers or society.

Meta-Decision in Healthcare

Meta-decision as a junction between evidence and its rightful implementation is suggested in this review as a structured framework applied in healthcare, valuable to clinicians and healthcare decision-makers. The process of meta-decision requires optimum measurements to provide data necessary for identifying and developing decision alternatives and explicitly reflect on its value and choose the optimum decision. The location of value in the meta-decision framework is core component. Of equal importance are prerequisites for decision-makers' abilities to make meta-decisions and focus on optimum team environments. As well as improving their decision-making process through reflection and learning.

The Estimates of the Health and Economic Burden of Dengue in Vietnam

Dengue has been estimated to cause a substantial health and economic burden in Vietnam. The most recent studies have estimated that it is responsible for 39884 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) annually, representing an economic burden of US$94.87 million per year (in 2016 prices). However, there are alternative burden estimates that are notably lower. This variation is predominantly due to differences in how the number of symptomatic dengue cases is estimated. Understanding the methodology of these burden calculations is vital when interpreting health economic analyses of dengue. This review aims to provide an overview of the health and economic burden estimates of dengue in Vietnam. We also highlight important research gaps for future studies.

Should statin guidelines consider patient preferences? Eliciting preferences of benefit and harm outcomes of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the sub-Saharan African and European contexts

BACKGROUND

Patient preferences are key parameters to evaluate benefit-harm balance of statins for primary prevention but they are not readily available to guideline developers and decision makers. Our study aimed to elicit patient preferences for benefit and harm outcomes related to use of statins for primary cardiovascular disease prevention and to examine how the preferences differ across economically and socio-culturally different environments.

METHODS

We conducted preference-eliciting surveys using best-worst scaling designed with a balanced incomplete-block design (BIBD) on 13 statins-related outcomes on 220 people in Ethiopia and Switzerland. The participants made tradeoff decisions and selected the most and least worrisome outcomes concurrently from each scenario generated using the BIBD. The design yielded 34,320 implied paired-comparisons and 2860 paired-responses as unit of analysis for eliciting the preferences that were analyzed using a conditional-logit model on a relative scale and surface under the cumulative ranking curve from multivariate random-effects meta-analysis model on a scale of 0 to 1.

RESULTS

There was high internal consistency of responses and minimal amount of measurement error in both surveys. Severe stroke was the most worrisome outcome with a ceiling preference of 1 (on 0 to 1 scale) followed by severe myocardial infarction, 0.913 (95% CI, 0.889-0.943), and cancer, 0.846 (0.829-0.855); while treatment discontinuation, 0.090 (0.023-0.123), and nausea/headache, 0.060 (0.034-0.094) were the least worrisome outcomes. Preferences were similar between Ethiopia and Switzerland with overlapping uncertainty intervals and concordance correlation of 0.97 (0.90-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides much needed empirical evidence on preferences that help clinical guidelines consider for weighing the benefit and harm outcomes when recommending for or against statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The preferences are consistent across the disparate settings; however, we recommend inclusion of more countries in future studies to ensure the generalizability of the preferences to all environments.

The disvalue of death in the global burden of disease

In the Global Burden of Disease study, disease burden is measured as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The paramount assumption of the DALY is that it makes sense to aggregate years lived with disability (YLDs) and years of life lost (YLLs). However, this is not smooth sailing. Whereas morbidity (YLD) is something that happens to an individual, loss of life itself (YLL) occurs when that individual's life has ended. YLLs quantify something that involves no experience and does not take place among living individuals. This casts doubt on whether the YLL is an individual burden at all. If not, then YLDs and YLLs are incommensurable. There are at least three responses to this problem, only one of which is tenable: a counterfactual account of harm. Taking this strategy necessitates a re-examination of how we count YLLs, particularly at the beginning of life.

Out of Alignment? Limitations of the Global Burden of Disease in Assessing the Allocation of Global Health Aid

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) project quantifies the impact of different health conditions by combining information about morbidity and premature mortality within a single metric, the Disability Adjusted Life Year. One important goal for the GBD project has been to inform decisions about global health priorities. A number of recent studies have used GBD data to argue that global health funding fails to align with the GBD. We argue that these studies’ shared assumption that global health resources should ‘align’ with the burden of disease is unfounded and has troubling implications. First, since the allocation of resources involves difficult trade-offs between different, potentially competing goals, any ‘misalignment’ of allocation and disease burdens need not necessarily indicate that the allocation of funds fails to meet recipient countries’ needs or interests. Second, using alignment as a baseline implicitly makes controversial assumptions about how harms of different magnitudes affecting different numbers of individuals should be aggregated. We discuss two alternative ways in which GBD data could help inform decisions about resource allocation, neither of which gives more than a limited role to GBD data.

Prioritization for Plastic Surgery Procedures Aimed to Improve Quality of Life: Moral Considerations

Background:

Different health conditions are treated in a Plastic Surgery unit, including those cases whose main goal is to enable patients to feel and integrate better within society and therefore improving quality of life, rather then physical functions.

Methods:

We discuss moral principles that can be used as a guide for health professionals to revise and create policies for plastic surgery patients presenting with non–life-threatening conditions.

Results:

A specific anatomical feature is not always an indicator of patient’s well-being and quality of life, and therefore it cannot be used as the sole parameter to identify the worst-off and prioritize the provision of health care. A policy should identify who preoperatively are the worst-off and come to some plausible measure of how much they can be expected to benefit from an operation. Policies that do not track these principles in any reliable way can cause discrimination.

Conclusions:

A patient-centered operating system and patient’s informed preferences might be implemented in the process of prioritizing health. In circumstances when the effectiveness of a specific treatment is unproven, professionals should not make assumptions based on their own values.

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

BACKGROUND

Non-fatal outcomes of disease and injury increasingly detract from the ability of the world's population to live in full health, a trend largely attributable to an epidemiological transition in many countries from causes affecting children, to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) more common in adults. For the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 (GBD 2015), we estimated the incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for diseases and injuries at the global, regional, and national scale over the period of 1990 to 2015.

METHODS

We estimated incidence and prevalence by age, sex, cause, year, and geography with a wide range of updated and standardised analytical procedures. Improvements from GBD 2013 included the addition of new data sources, updates to literature reviews for 85 causes, and the identification and inclusion of additional studies published up to November, 2015, to expand the database used for estimation of non-fatal outcomes to 60 900 unique data sources. Prevalence and incidence by cause and sequelae were determined with DisMod-MR 2.1, an improved version of the DisMod-MR Bayesian meta-regression tool first developed for GBD 2010 and GBD 2013. For some causes, we used alternative modelling strategies where the complexity of the disease was not suited to DisMod-MR 2.1 or where incidence and prevalence needed to be determined from other data. For GBD 2015 we created a summary indicator that combines measures of income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility (the Socio-demographic Index [SDI]) and used it to compare observed patterns of health loss to the expected pattern for countries or locations with similar SDI scores.

FINDINGS

We generated 9·3 billion estimates from the various combinations of prevalence, incidence, and YLDs for causes, sequelae, and impairments by age, sex, geography, and year. In 2015, two causes had acute incidences in excess of 1 billion: upper respiratory infections (17·2 billion, 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 15·4-19·2 billion) and diarrhoeal diseases (2·39 billion, 2·30-2·50 billion). Eight causes of chronic disease and injury each affected more than 10% of the world's population in 2015: permanent caries, tension-type headache, iron-deficiency anaemia, age-related and other hearing loss, migraine, genital herpes, refraction and accommodation disorders, and ascariasis. The impairment that affected the greatest number of people in 2015 was anaemia, with 2·36 billion (2·35-2·37 billion) individuals affected. The second and third leading impairments by number of individuals affected were hearing loss and vision loss, respectively. Between 2005 and 2015, there was little change in the leading causes of years lived with disability (YLDs) on a global basis. NCDs accounted for 18 of the leading 20 causes of age-standardised YLDs on a global scale. Where rates were decreasing, the rate of decrease for YLDs was slower than that of years of life lost (YLLs) for nearly every cause included in our analysis. For low SDI geographies, Group 1 causes typically accounted for 20-30% of total disability, largely attributable to nutritional deficiencies, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis. Lower back and neck pain was the leading global cause of disability in 2015 in most countries. The leading cause was sense organ disorders in 22 countries in Asia and Africa and one in central Latin America; diabetes in four countries in Oceania; HIV/AIDS in three southern sub-Saharan African countries; collective violence and legal intervention in two north African and Middle Eastern countries; iron-deficiency anaemia in Somalia and Venezuela; depression in Uganda; onchoceriasis in Liberia; and other neglected tropical diseases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

INTERPRETATION

Ageing of the world's population is increasing the number of people living with sequelae of diseases and injuries. Shifts in the epidemiological profile driven by socioeconomic change also contribute to the continued increase in years lived with disability (YLDs) as well as the rate of increase in YLDs. Despite limitations imposed by gaps in data availability and the variable quality of the data available, the standardised and comprehensive approach of the GBD study provides opportunities to examine broad trends, compare those trends between countries or subnational geographies, benchmark against locations at similar stages of development, and gauge the strength or weakness of the estimates available.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Are Indirect Benefits Relevant to Health Care Allocation Decisions?

When allocating scarce healthcare resources, the expected benefits of alternative allocations matter. But, there are different kinds of benefits. Some are direct benefits to the recipient of the resource such as the health improvements of receiving treatment. Others are indirect benefits to third parties such as the economic gains from having a healthier workforce. This article considers whether only the direct benefits of alternative healthcare resource allocations are relevant to allocation decisions, or whether indirect benefits are relevant too. First, we distinguish different conceptions of direct and indirect benefits and argue that only a recipient conception could be morally relevant. We analyze four arguments for thinking that indirect benefits should not count and argue that none is successful in showing that the indirectness of a benefit is a good reason not to count it. We conclude that direct and indirect benefits should be evaluated in the same way.

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

BACKGROUND

Measurement of the global burden of disease with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) requires disability weights that quantify health losses for all non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. There has been extensive debate about a range of conceptual and methodological issues concerning the definition and measurement of these weights. Our primary objective was a comprehensive re-estimation of disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 through a large-scale empirical investigation in which judgments about health losses associated with many causes of disease and injury were elicited from the general public in diverse communities through a new, standardised approach.

METHODS

We surveyed respondents in two ways: household surveys of adults aged 18 years or older (face-to-face interviews in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania; telephone interviews in the USA) between Oct 28, 2009, and June 23, 2010; and an open-access web-based survey between July 26, 2010, and May 16, 2011. The surveys used paired comparison questions, in which respondents considered two hypothetical individuals with different, randomly selected health states and indicated which person they regarded as healthier. The web survey added questions about population health equivalence, which compared the overall health benefits of different life-saving or disease-prevention programmes. We analysed paired comparison responses with probit regression analysis on all 220 unique states in the study. We used results from the population health equivalence responses to anchor the results from the paired comparisons on the disability weight scale from 0 (implying no loss of health) to 1 (implying a health loss equivalent to death). Additionally, we compared new disability weights with those used in WHO's most recent update of the Global Burden of Disease Study for 2004.

FINDINGS

13,902 individuals participated in household surveys and 16,328 in the web survey. Analysis of paired comparison responses indicated a high degree of consistency across surveys: correlations between individual survey results and results from analysis of the pooled dataset were 0·9 or higher in all surveys except in Bangladesh (r=0·75). Most of the 220 disability weights were located on the mild end of the severity scale, with 58 (26%) having weights below 0·05. Five (11%) states had weights below 0·01, such as mild anaemia, mild hearing or vision loss, and secondary infertility. The health states with the highest disability weights were acute schizophrenia (0·76) and severe multiple sclerosis (0·71). We identified a broad pattern of agreement between the old and new weights (r=0·70), particularly in the moderate-to-severe range. However, in the mild range below 0·2, many states had significantly lower weights in our study than previously.

INTERPRETATION

This study represents the most extensive empirical effort as yet to measure disability weights. By contrast with the popular hypothesis that disability assessments vary widely across samples with different cultural environments, we have reported strong evidence of highly consistent results.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.