Six Ways Population Change Will Affect the Global Economy

New estimates of economic flows by age combined with population projections show that in the coming decades (1) global GDP growth could be slower by about 1 percentage point per year, declining more sharply than population growth; (2) GDP will shift toward sub-Saharan Africa more than population trends suggest; (3) living standards of working-age adults may be squeezed by high spending on children and seniors; (4) changing population age distribution will raise living standards in many lower-income nations; (5) changing economic life cycles will amplify the economic effects of population aging in many higher income economies; and (6) population aging will likely push public debt, private assets, and perhaps productivity higher. Population change will have profound implications for national, regional, and global economies.Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging/[5P30AGO12839-24]/CEDA/Estados UnidosWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation/[2013-9306]//Estados UnidosWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation/[2017-4778]//Estados UnidosInternational Development Research Centre/[107451]/IDRC/Estados UnidosEuropean Union’s Seventh Framework Program/[613247]/FP7/Unión EuropeaUnited Nations Development Account/[1617AO]/UNDP/Estados UnidosUCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Centro Centroamericano de Población (CCP

Cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes mortality burden of cardiometabolic risk factors from 1980 to 2010: A comparative risk assessment

Background: High blood pressure, blood glucose, serum cholesterol, and BMI are risk factors for cardiovascular diseases and some of these factors also increase the risk of chronic kidney disease and diabetes. We estimated mortality from cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes that was attributable to these four cardiometabolic risk factors for all countries and regions from 1980 to 2010. Methods: We used data for exposure to risk factors by country, age group, and sex from pooled analyses of population-based health surveys. We obtained relative risks for the effects of risk factors on cause-specific mortality from meta-analyses of large prospective studies. We calculated the population attributable fractions for each risk factor alone, and for the combination of all risk factors, accounting for multicausality and for mediation of the effects of BMI by the other three risks. We calculated attributable deaths by multiplying the cause-specific population attributable fractions by the number of disease-specific deaths. We obtained cause-specific mortality from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors 2010 Study. We propagated the uncertainties of all the inputs to the final estimates. Findings: In 2010, high blood pressure was the leading risk factor for deaths due to cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes in every region, causing more than 40% of worldwide deaths from these diseases; high BMI and glucose were each responsible for about 15% of deaths, and high cholesterol for more than 10%. After accounting for multicausality, 63% (10·8 million deaths, 95% CI 10·1-11·5) of deaths from these diseases in 2010 were attributable to the combined effect of these four metabolic risk factors, compared with 67% (7·1 million deaths, 6·6-7·6) in 1980. The mortality burden of high BMI and glucose nearly doubled from 1980 to 2010. At the country level, age-standardised death rates from these diseases attributable to the combined effects of these four risk factors surpassed 925 deaths per 100 000 for men in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia, but were less than 130 deaths per 100 000 for women and less than 200 for men in some high-income countries including Australia, Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, and Spain. Interpretation: The salient features of the cardiometabolic disease and risk factor epidemic at the beginning of the 21st century are high blood pressure and an increasing effect of obesity and diabetes. The mortality burden of cardiometabolic risk factors has shifted from high-income to low-income and middle-income countries. Lowering cardiometabolic risks through dietary, behavioural, and pharmacological interventions should be a part of the global response to non-communicable diseases. Funding: UK Medical Research Council, US National Institutes of Health. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd

Core outcome measures for research in traumatic injury survivors: The NTRAP modified delphi consensus study

Background: Until recently, survival has been the main outcome measure for injury research. Given the impact of injury on quality of life, The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has called for advancing the science of research evaluating the long-term outcomes of trauma survivors. This is necessary so that treatments and interventions can be assessed for their impact on a trauma patients\u27 long-term functional and psychosocial outcomes. We sought to propose a set of core domains and measurement instruments that are best suited to evaluate long-term outcomes after traumatic injury with a goal for these measures to be adopted as a national standard. Methods: As part of the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan, we conducted a two-stage, five-round modified online Delphi consensus process with a diverse panel of 50 key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, and trauma survivors from more than nine professional areas across the United States. Before voting, panelists reviewed the results of a scoping review on patient-reported outcomes after injury and standardized information on measurement instruments following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results: The panel considered a preliminary list of 74 outcome domains (patient-reported outcomes, or PROs) and ultimately reached the a priori consensus criteria for 29 core domains that encompass aspects of physical, mental, social, and cognitive health. Among these 29 core domains, the panel considered a preliminary list of 199 PRO measures (PROMs) and reached the a priori consensus criteria for 14 measures across 13 core domains. Participation of panelists ranged from 65-98% across the five Delphi rounds. Conclusions: We developed a Core Outcome Measurement Set that will facilitate the synthesis, comparison, and interpretation of long-term trauma outcomes research. These measures should be prioritized in all future studies in which researchers elect to evaluate long-term outcomes of traumatic injury survivors

Core outcome measures for research in traumatic injury survivors: The National Trauma Research Action Plan modified Delphi consensus study

Background: Until recently, survival has been the main outcome measure for injury research. Given the impact of injury on quality of life, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has called for advancing the science of research evaluating the long-term outcomes of trauma survivors. This is necessary so that treatments and interventions can be assessed for their impact on a trauma patients\u27 long-term functional and psychosocial outcomes. We sought to propose a set of core domains and measurement instruments that are best suited to evaluate long-term outcomes after traumatic injury with a goal for these measures to be adopted as a national standard. Methods: As part of the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan, we conducted a two-stage, five-round modified online Delphi consensus process with a diverse panel of 50 key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, and trauma survivors from more than 9 professional areas across the United States. Before voting, panelists reviewed the results of a scoping review on patient-reported outcomes after injury and standardized information on measurement instruments following the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Results: The panel considered a preliminary list of 74 outcome domains (patient-reported outcomes) and ultimately reached the a priori consensus criteria for 29 core domains that encompass aspects of physical, mental, social, and cognitive health. Among these 29 core domains, the panel considered a preliminary list of 199 patient-reported outcome measures and reached the a priori consensus criteria for 14 measures across 13 core domains. Participation of panelists ranged from 65% to 98% across the five Delphi rounds.Conclusion: We developed a core outcome measurement set that will facilitate the synthesis, comparison, and interpretation of long-term trauma outcomes research. These measures should be prioritized in all future studies in which researchers elect to evaluate long-term outcomes of traumatic injury survivors.Level of evidence: Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV

Access to trauma center care: A statewide system-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to specialized trauma care is a vital element in patient outcome after severe and critical injury requiring the skills of trauma teams in levels I and II trauma centers to avoid preventable mortality. We used system-based models to estimate timely access to care. METHODS: Trauma system models consisted of ground emergency medical services, helicopter emergency medical services, and designated levels I to V trauma centers were constructed for five states. These models incorporated geographic information systems along with traffic data and census block group data to estimate population access to trauma care within the golden hour. Trauma systems were further analyzed to identify the optimal location for an additional level I or II trauma center that would provide the greatest increase in access. RESULTS: The population of the states studied totaled 23 million people, of which 20 million (87%) had access to a level I or II trauma center within 60 minutes. Statewide-specific access ranged from 60% to 100%. Including levels III to V trauma centers, access within 60 minutes increased to 22 million (96%), ranging from 95% to 100%. The addition of a levels I and II trauma center in an optimized location in each state would provide timely access to a higher trauma capability for an additional 1.1 million, increasing total access to approximately 21.1 million people (92%). CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that nearly universal access to trauma care is present in these states when including levels I to V trauma centers. However, concerning gaps remain in timely access to levels I and II trauma centers. This study provides an approach to determine more robust statewide estimates of access to care. It highlights the need for a national trauma system, one in which all components of state-managed trauma systems are assembled in a national data set to accurately identify gaps in care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV

Development of a Standardized Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment Tool for Radiologists: Validation, Multisource Reliability, and Lessons Learned

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and test a standardized communication skills assessment instrument for radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Delphi method was used to validate the Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment instrument for radiology by revising and achieving consensus on the 43 items of the preexisting instrument among an interdisciplinary team of experts consisting of five radiologists and four nonradiologists (two men, seven women). Reviewers assessed the applicability of the instrument to evaluation of conversations between radiology trainees and trained actors portraying concerned parents in enactments about bad news, radiation risks, and diagnostic errors that were video recorded during a communication workshop. Interrater reliability was assessed by use of the revised instrument to rate a series of enactments between trainees and actors video recorded in a hospital-based simulator center. Eight raters evaluated each of seven different video-recorded interactions between physicians and parent-actors. RESULTS: The final instrument contained 43 items. After three review rounds, 42 of 43 (98%) items had an average rating of relevant or very relevant for bad news conversations. All items were rated as relevant or very relevant for conversations about error disclosure and radiation risk. Reliability and rater agreement measures were moderate. The intraclass correlation coefficient range was 0.07-0.58; mean, 0.30; SD, 0.13; and median, 0.30. The range of weighted kappa values was 0.03-0.47; mean, 0.23; SD, 0.12; and median, 0.22. Ratings varied significantly among conversations (chi26 = 1186; p \u3c 0.0001) and varied significantly by viewing order, rater type, and rater sex. CONCLUSION: The adapted communication skills assessment instrument is highly relevant for radiology, having moderate interrater reliability. These findings have important implications for assessing the relational competencies of radiology trainees

Development of a Standardized Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment Tool for Radiologists: Validation, Multisource Reliability, and Lessons Learned

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and test a standardized communication skills assessment instrument for radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Delphi method was used to validate the Kalamazoo Communication Skills Assessment instrument for radiology by revising and achieving consensus on the 43 items of the preexisting instrument among an interdisciplinary team of experts consisting of five radiologists and four nonradiologists (two men, seven women). Reviewers assessed the applicability of the instrument to evaluation of conversations between radiology trainees and trained actors portraying concerned parents in enactments about bad news, radiation risks, and diagnostic errors that were video recorded during a communication workshop. Interrater reliability was assessed by use of the revised instrument to rate a series of enactments between trainees and actors video recorded in a hospital-based simulator center. Eight raters evaluated each of seven different video-recorded interactions between physicians and parent-actors. RESULTS: The final instrument contained 43 items. After three review rounds, 42 of 43 (98%) items had an average rating of relevant or very relevant for bad news conversations. All items were rated as relevant or very relevant for conversations about error disclosure and radiation risk. Reliability and rater agreement measures were moderate. The intraclass correlation coefficient range was 0.07-0.58; mean, 0.30; SD, 0.13; and median, 0.30. The range of weighted kappa values was 0.03-0.47; mean, 0.23; SD, 0.12; and median, 0.22. Ratings varied significantly among conversations (chi26 = 1186; p \u3c 0.0001) and varied significantly by viewing order, rater type, and rater sex. CONCLUSION: The adapted communication skills assessment instrument is highly relevant for radiology, having moderate interrater reliability. These findings have important implications for assessing the relational competencies of radiology trainees

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP): Results from the Pediatric Research Gap Delphi Survey

BACKGROUNDIn 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine trauma report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) to "strengthen trauma research and ensure that the resources available for this research are commensurate with the importance of injury and the potential for improvement in patient outcomes." With a contract from the Department of Defense, the Coalition for National Trauma Research (CNTR) created 11 expert panels to address this recommendation, with the goal of developing a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. This report outlines the work of the group focused on pediatric trauma. METHODSExperts in pediatric trauma clinical care and research were recruited to identify gaps in current clinical pediatric trauma research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Using successive surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale categorized to represent priority. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement within the priority category. Priority questions were coded based on a dictionary of 118 NTRAP taxonomy concepts in nine categories to support comparative analysis across all panels. RESULTS37 subject matter experts generated 625 questions. 493 questions (79%) reached consensus on priority level. Of those reaching consensus, 159 (32%) were High, 325 (66%) Medium and 9 (2%) Low priority. The highest priority research questions related to surgical interventions for traumatic brain injury (ICP monitoring and craniotomy); second highest priority was hemorrhagic shock. The prehospital setting was the highest priority phase of care. CONCLUSIONSThis diverse panel of experts determined that most significant pediatric trauma research gaps were in traumatic brain injur, hemorrhagic shock, and the prehospital phase of care. These research domains should be top priorities for funding agencies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCEIV