Procedure utilization, latency and mortality: Weekend versus Weekday admission for Myocardial Infarction

ABSTRACT Background: Due to variations in hospital protocols and personnel availability, individuals with myocardia

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.Peer reviewe

Burnout among surgeons before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: an international survey

Background: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had many significant impacts within the surgical realm, and surgeons have been obligated to reconsider almost every aspect of daily clinical practice. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study reported in compliance with the CHERRIES guidelines and conducted through an online platform from June 14th to July 15th, 2020. The primary outcome was the burden of burnout during the pandemic indicated by the validated Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure. Results: Nine hundred fifty-four surgeons completed the survey. The median length of practice was 10 years; 78.2% included were male with a median age of 37 years old, 39.5% were consultants, 68.9% were general surgeons, and 55.7% were affiliated with an academic institution. Overall, there was a significant increase in the mean burnout score during the pandemic; longer years of practice and older age were significantly associated with less burnout. There were significant reductions in the median number of outpatient visits, operated cases, on-call hours, emergency visits, and research work, so, 48.2% of respondents felt that the training resources were insufficient. The majority (81.3%) of respondents reported that their hospitals were included in the management of COVID-19, 66.5% felt their roles had been minimized; 41% were asked to assist in non-surgical medical practices, and 37.6% of respondents were included in COVID-19 management. Conclusions: There was a significant burnout among trainees. Almost all aspects of clinical and research activities were affected with a significant reduction in the volume of research, outpatient clinic visits, surgical procedures, on-call hours, and emergency cases hindering the training. Trial registration: The study was registered on clicaltrials.gov "NCT04433286" on 16/06/2020

Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050

Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached$8. 8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval UI] 8.7-8.8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total,$40.4 billion (0.5%, 95% UI 0.5-0.5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24.6% (UI 24.0-25.1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54.8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this,$13.7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12.3 billion was newly committed and$1.4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3.1 billion (22.4$2.4 billion (17.9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714.4 million (7.7$1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

Procedure utilization, latency and mortality: Weekend versus Weekday admission for Myocardial Infarction

Background: Due to variations in hospital protocols and personnel availability, individuals with myocardial infarction admitted on the weekend may be less likely to receive invasive procedures, or may receive them with a greater latency than those admitted during the week. Whether or not this occurs, and translates into a difference in outcomes is not established. Method: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2008-2011) database, we identified all patients admitted with a principle diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. They were stratified by weekend or weekday admission. Baseline clinical characteristics, procedure utilization and latency to procedure were compared, and logistic regression models were constructed to assess the relationship between these variables and in-hospital mortality. Results: Patient demographics and provider-related characteristics (hospital type, geography) were similar between weekend and weekday admission for myocardial infarction. Adjusted for covariates, we found that the odds of mortality for a weekend admission are 5% greater than for a weekday admission (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.09, p=0.009). For the utilization of an invasive procedure, we found that the odds of receiving a procedure for a weekend admission were 12% less than the odds for a weekday admission, adjusted for the other covariates (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.91, p<0.001). In addition, we found that the time to procedure was an average of 0.18 days (4.32 hours) longer for weekend admissions compared to weekday admissions (95% CI: 0.16, 0.20, p<0.001). However, we did not observe a significant difference in the overall length of stay for weekend and weekday admissions (0.004 days; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.05, p=0.87). Conclusion: In a large and diverse subset of patients admitted with myocardial infarction, weekend admission was associated with fewer procedures, increased latency to those procedures, and a non-significant trend towards greater in adjusted in-hospital mortality

Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050

BackgroundThe rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020.MethodsWe estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050.FindingsIn 2019, health spending globally reached$8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7–8·8) or $1132 (1119–1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total,$40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5–0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0–25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this,$13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12·3 billion was newly committed and$1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3·1 billion (22·4$2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714·4 million (7·7$1519 (1448–1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied.InterpretationGlobal health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all.</h4

Assessing performance of the Healthcare Access and Quality Index, overall and by select age groups, for 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Health-care needs change throughout the life course. It is thus crucial to assess whether health systems provide access to quality health care for all ages. W measured the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index overall and for select age groups in 204 locations from 1990 to 2019. For GBD 2019, HAQ Index construction methods were updated to use the arithmetic mean of scaled mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs) and risk-standardised death rates (RSDRs) for 32 causes of death that should not occur in the presence of timely, quality health care. Across locations and years, MIRs and RSDRs were scaled from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) separately, putting the HAQ Index on a different relative scale for each age group. We estimated absolute convergence for each group on the basis of whether the HAQ Index grew faster in absolute terms between 1990 and 2019 in countries with lower 1990 HAQ Index scores than countries with higher 1990 HAQ Index scores and by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. Interpretation Although major gaps remain across levels of social and economic development, convergence in the young group is an encouraging sign of reduced disparities in health-care access and quality. However, divergence in the working and post-working groups indicates that health-care access and quality is lagging at lower levels of social and economic development. To meet the needs of ageing populations, health systems need to improve health-care access and quality for working-age adults and older populations while continuing to realise gains among the young

Assessing performance of the Healthcare Access and Quality Index, overall and by select age groups, for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

BackgroundHealth-care needs change throughout the life course. It is thus crucial to assess whether health systems provide access to quality health care for all ages. Drawing from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019), we measured the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index overall and for select age groups in 204 locations from 1990 to 2019.MethodsWe distinguished the overall HAQ Index (ages 0-74 years) from scores for select age groups: the young (ages 0-14 years), working (ages 15-64 years), and post-working (ages 65-74 years) groups. For GBD 2019, HAQ Index construction methods were updated to use the arithmetic mean of scaled mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs) and risk-standardised death rates (RSDRs) for 32 causes of death that should not occur in the presence of timely, quality health care. Across locations and years, MIRs and RSDRs were scaled from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) separately, putting the HAQ Index on a different relative scale for each age group. We estimated absolute convergence for each group on the basis of whether the HAQ Index grew faster in absolute terms between 1990 and 2019 in countries with lower 1990 HAQ Index scores than countries with higher 1990 HAQ Index scores and by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. SDI is a summary metric of overall development.FindingsBetween 1990 and 2019, the HAQ Index increased overall (by 19·6 points, 95% uncertainty interval 17·9-21·3), as well as among the young (22·5, 19·9-24·7), working (17·2, 15·2-19·1), and post-working (15·1, 13·2-17·0) age groups. Large differences in HAQ Index scores were present across SDI levels in 2019, with the overall index ranging from 30·7 (28·6-33·0) on average in low-SDI countries to 83·4 (82·4-84·3) on average in high-SDI countries. Similarly large ranges between low-SDI and high-SDI countries, respectively, were estimated in the HAQ Index for the young (40·4-89·0), working (33·8-82·8), and post-working (30·4-79·1) groups. Absolute convergence in HAQ Index was estimated in the young group only. In contrast, divergence was estimated among the working and post-working groups, driven by slow progress in low-SDI countries.InterpretationAlthough major gaps remain across levels of social and economic development, convergence in the young group is an encouraging sign of reduced disparities in health-care access and quality. However, divergence in the working and post-working groups indicates that health-care access and quality is lagging at lower levels of social and economic development. To meet the needs of ageing populations, health systems need to improve health-care access and quality for working-age adults and older populations while continuing to realise gains among the young.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% 47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% 32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% 27.9-42.8] and 33.3% 25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license