Estimating the impact of unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene on the global burden of disease: evolving and alternative methods.

The 2010 global burden of disease (GBD) study represents the latest effort to estimate the global burden of disease and injuries and the associated risk factors. Like previous GBD studies, this latest iteration reflects a continuing evolution in methods, scope and evidence base. Since the first GBD Study in 1990, the burden of diarrhoeal disease and the burden attributable to inadequate water and sanitation have fallen dramatically. While this is consistent with trends in communicable disease and child mortality, the change in attributable risk is also due to new interpretations of the epidemiological evidence from studies of interventions to improve water quality. To provide context for a series of companion papers proposing alternative assumptions and methods concerning the disease burden and risks from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene, we summarise evolving methods over previous GBD studies. We also describe an alternative approach using population intervention modelling. We conclude by emphasising the important role of GBD studies and the need to ensure that policy on interventions such as water and sanitation be grounded on methods that are transparent, peer-reviewed and widely accepted

Estimating the impact of unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene on the global burden of disease: evolving and alternative methods.

The 2010 global burden of disease (GBD) study represents the latest effort to estimate the global burden of disease and injuries and the associated risk factors. Like previous GBD studies, this latest iteration reflects a continuing evolution in methods, scope and evidence base. Since the first GBD Study in 1990, the burden of diarrhoeal disease and the burden attributable to inadequate water and sanitation have fallen dramatically. While this is consistent with trends in communicable disease and child mortality, the change in attributable risk is also due to new interpretations of the epidemiological evidence from studies of interventions to improve water quality. To provide context for a series of companion papers proposing alternative assumptions and methods concerning the disease burden and risks from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene, we summarise evolving methods over previous GBD studies. We also describe an alternative approach using population intervention modelling. We conclude by emphasising the important role of GBD studies and the need to ensure that policy on interventions such as water and sanitation be grounded on methods that are transparent, peer-reviewed and widely accepted

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorders

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorder attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. OBJECTIVES: We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to long working hours (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorder (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework. DATA SOURCES: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsychINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of exposure to long working hours (i.e., 35-40, 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of a relevant level of exposure to long working hours on total amount of alcohol consumed and on the incidence of, prevalence of or mortality from alcohol use disorders, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., worked 35-40 h/week). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084077.status: publishe

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres and of the effect of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on pneumoconiosis

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years attributable to pneumoconiosis from occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. OBJECTIVES: We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on pneumoconiosis (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework. DATA SOURCES: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We will include working-age (≥15 years) study participants in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. Eligible risk factors will be dusts and/or fibres from: (i) asbestos; (ii) silica; and/or (iii) coal (defined as pure coal dust and/or dust from coal mining). Included outcomes will be (i) asbestosis; (ii) silicosis; (iii) coal worker pneumoconiosis; and (iv) unspecified pneumoconiosis. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (i.e. no versus any exposure) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of any occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to pneumoconiosis, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level of no exposure. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084131.status: publishe

Data Integration for the Assessment of Population Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution for Global Burden of Disease Assessment

Air pollution is a leading global disease risk factor. Tracking progress (e.g., for Sustainable Development Goals) requires accurate, spatially resolved, routinely updated exposure estimates. A Bayesian hierarchical model was developed to estimate annual average fine particle (PM_2.5) concentrations at 0.1° × 0.1° spatial resolution globally for 2010–2016. The model incorporated spatially varying relationships between 6003 ground measurements from 117 countries, satellite-based estimates, and other predictors. Model coefficients indicated larger contributions from satellite-based estimates in countries with low monitor density. Within and out-of-sample cross-validation indicated improved predictions of ground measurements compared to previous (Global Burden of Disease 2013) estimates (increased within-sample <i>R</i>² from 0.64 to 0.91, reduced out-of-sample, global population-weighted root mean squared error from 23 μg/m³ to 12 μg/m³). In 2016, 95% of the world’s population lived in areas where ambient PM_2.5 levels exceeded the World Health Organization 10 μg/m³ (annual average) guideline; 58% resided in areas above the 35 μg/m³ Interim Target-1. Global population-weighted PM_2.5 concentrations were 18% higher in 2016 (51.1 μg/m³) than in 2010 (43.2 μg/m³), reflecting in particular increases in populous South Asian countries and from Saharan dust transported to West Africa. Concentrations in China were high (2016 population-weighted mean: 56.4 μg/m³) but stable during this period

Data Integration for the Assessment of Population Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution for Global Burden of Disease Assessment

Air pollution is a leading global disease risk factor. Tracking progress (e.g., for Sustainable Development Goals) requires accurate, spatially resolved, routinely updated exposure estimates. A Bayesian hierarchical model was developed to estimate annual average fine particle (PM_2.5) concentrations at 0.1° × 0.1° spatial resolution globally for 2010–2016. The model incorporated spatially varying relationships between 6003 ground measurements from 117 countries, satellite-based estimates, and other predictors. Model coefficients indicated larger contributions from satellite-based estimates in countries with low monitor density. Within and out-of-sample cross-validation indicated improved predictions of ground measurements compared to previous (Global Burden of Disease 2013) estimates (increased within-sample <i>R</i>² from 0.64 to 0.91, reduced out-of-sample, global population-weighted root mean squared error from 23 μg/m³ to 12 μg/m³). In 2016, 95% of the world’s population lived in areas where ambient PM_2.5 levels exceeded the World Health Organization 10 μg/m³ (annual average) guideline; 58% resided in areas above the 35 μg/m³ Interim Target-1. Global population-weighted PM_2.5 concentrations were 18% higher in 2016 (51.1 μg/m³) than in 2010 (43.2 μg/m³), reflecting in particular increases in populous South Asian countries and from Saharan dust transported to West Africa. Concentrations in China were high (2016 population-weighted mean: 56.4 μg/m³) but stable during this period

Data Integration for the Assessment of Population Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution for Global Burden of Disease Assessment

Air pollution is a leading global disease risk factor. Tracking progress (e.g., for Sustainable Development Goals) requires accurate, spatially resolved, routinely updated exposure estimates. A Bayesian hierarchical model was developed to estimate annual average fine particle (PM_2.5) concentrations at 0.1° × 0.1° spatial resolution globally for 2010–2016. The model incorporated spatially varying relationships between 6003 ground measurements from 117 countries, satellite-based estimates, and other predictors. Model coefficients indicated larger contributions from satellite-based estimates in countries with low monitor density. Within and out-of-sample cross-validation indicated improved predictions of ground measurements compared to previous (Global Burden of Disease 2013) estimates (increased within-sample <i>R</i>² from 0.64 to 0.91, reduced out-of-sample, global population-weighted root mean squared error from 23 μg/m³ to 12 μg/m³). In 2016, 95% of the world’s population lived in areas where ambient PM_2.5 levels exceeded the World Health Organization 10 μg/m³ (annual average) guideline; 58% resided in areas above the 35 μg/m³ Interim Target-1. Global population-weighted PM_2.5 concentrations were 18% higher in 2016 (51.1 μg/m³) than in 2010 (43.2 μg/m³), reflecting in particular increases in populous South Asian countries and from Saharan dust transported to West Africa. Concentrations in China were high (2016 population-weighted mean: 56.4 μg/m³) but stable during this period

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke

International audienceBackground The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from stroke attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. Objectives We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to long working hours (called Systematic Review 1 in the protocol) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of long working hours on stroke (called Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Data sources Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsychINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria We will include working-age (>= 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (= 55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 2005-2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of a relevant level of long working hours on the incidence of or mortality due to stroke, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. 35-40 h/week). Study appraisal and synthesis methods At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2