Lawson criterion for ignition exceeded in an inertial fusion experiment

For more than half a century, researchers around the world have been engaged in attempts to achieve fusion ignition as a proof of principle of various fusion concepts. Following the Lawson criterion, an ignited plasma is one where the fusion heating power is high enough to overcome all the physical processes that cool the fusion plasma, creating a positive thermodynamic feedback loop with rapidly increasing temperature. In inertially confined fusion, ignition is a state where the fusion plasma can begin "burn propagation" into surrounding cold fuel, enabling the possibility of high energy gain. While "scientific breakeven" (i.e., unity target gain) has not yet been achieved (here target gain is 0.72, 1.37 MJ of fusion for 1.92 MJ of laser energy), this Letter reports the first controlled fusion experiment, using laser indirect drive, on the National Ignition Facility to produce capsule gain (here 5.8) and reach ignition by nine different formulations of the Lawson criterion

Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe

What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions

Background Mobile health (mHealth) is often reputed to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Despite optimism, the strength of the evidence supporting this assertion has been limited. In this systematic review the body of evidence related to economic evaluations of mHealth interventions is assessed and summarized. Methods Seven electronic bibliographic databases, grey literature, and relevant references were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles, comparison of costs and consequences of interventions (one categorized as a primary mHealth intervention or mHealth intervention as a component of other interventions), health and economic outcomes and published in English. Full economic evaluations were appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist and The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results Searches identified 5902 results, of which 318 were examined at full text, and 39 were included in this review. The 39 studies spanned 19 countries, most of which were conducted in upper and upper-middle income countries (34, 87.2%). Primary mHealth interventions (35, 89.7%), behavior change communication type interventions (e.g., improve attendance rates, medication adherence) (27, 69.2%), and short messaging system (SMS) as the mHealth function (e.g., used to send reminders, information, provide support, conduct surveys or collect data) (22, 56.4%) were most frequent; the most frequent disease or condition focuses were outpatient clinic attendance, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 79.6% (range 47.62–100, STD 14.18) and the top quartile reported 91.3–100%. In 29 studies (74.3%), researchers reported that the mHealth intervention was cost-effective, economically beneficial, or cost saving at base case. Conclusions Findings highlight a growing body of economic evidence for mHealth interventions. Although all studies included a comparison of intervention effectiveness of a health-related outcome and reported economic data, many did not report all recommended economic outcome items and were lacking in comprehensive analysis. The identified economic evaluations varied by disease or condition focus, economic outcome measurements, perspectives, and were distributed unevenly geographically, limiting formal meta-analysis. Further research is needed in low and low-middle income countries and to understand the impact of different mHealth types. Following established economic reporting guidelines will improve this body of research