Current and life-time alcohol consumption in Iranian students: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The present systematic review and meta-analysis were aimed to assess the current and lifetime prevalence of alcohol consumption among school and university students in Iran. Online databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and domestic scientific databases including SID, Magiran, IRANDOC, RICeST were searched systematically from inception to December 2019, using Persian and English languages. Following a random-effects meta-analysis, we estimated the pooled current and lifetime prevalence of alcohol consumption among school and university students in Iran. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q statistic and quantified with the I2 statistic. Of the 319 identified records, 64 articles met the inclusion criteria. The students’ overall pooled prevalence of current and lifetime alcohol consumption was 11.7% (95% CI, 10.0–13.4) and 14.5% (95% CI, 12.1–16.9), respectively. Prevalence of current and lifetime alcohol consumption among school students were 15.2% (95% CI, 7.8–11.5), and 15.4% (95% CI, 12.5–18.4) respectively, prevalence of current and lifetime alcohol consumption in university students were 9.7% (95% CI, 7.8–11.5), 13.7% (95% CI, 10.3–17.2) respectively. Based on findings, it seems necessary to implement and formulate primary and comprehensive prevention strategies and policies based on various cultures, regions, geographies, ages, and ethnicity.</p

Predicting the environmental suitability for onchocerciasis in Africa as an aid to elimination planning

Recent evidence suggests that, in some foci, elimination of onchocerciasis from Africa may be feasible with mass drug administration (MDA) of ivermectin. To achieve continental elimination of transmission, mapping surveys will need to be conducted across all implementation units (IUs) for which endemicity status is currently unknown. Using boosted regression tree models with optimised hyperparameter selection, we estimated environmental suitability for onchocerciasis at the 5 × 5-km resolution across Africa. In order to classify IUs that include locations that are environmentally suitable, we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify an optimal threshold for suitability concordant with locations where onchocerciasis has been previously detected. This threshold value was then used to classify IUs (more suitable or less suitable) based on the location within the IU with the largest mean prediction. Mean estimates of environmental suitability suggest large areas across West and Central Africa, as well as focal areas of East Africa, are suitable for onchocerciasis transmission, consistent with the presence of current control and elimination of transmission efforts. The ROC analysis identified a mean environmental suitability index of 0.71 as a threshold to classify based on the location with the largest mean prediction within the IU. Of the IUs considered for mapping surveys, 50.2% exceed this threshold for suitability in at least one 5×5-km location. The formidable scale of data collection required to map onchocerciasis endemicity across the African continent presents an opportunity to use spatial data to identify areas likely to be suitable for onchocerciasis transmission. National onchocerciasis elimination programmes may wish to consider prioritising these IUs for mapping surveys as human resources, laboratory capacity, and programmatic schedules may constrain survey implementation, and possibly delaying MDA initiation in areas that would ultimately qualify

Additional file 3 of Mapping age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence in adults in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–2018

Additional file 3: Supplemental figures.Figure S1. Prevalence of male circumcision. Figure S2. Prevalence of signs and symptoms of sexually transmitted infections. Figure S3. Prevalence of marriage or living as married. Figure S4. Prevalence of partner living elsewhere among females. Figure S5. Prevalence of condom use during most recent sexual encounter. Figure S6. Prevalence of sexual activity among young females. Figure S7. Prevalence of multiple partners among males in the past year. Figure S8. Prevalence of multiple partners among females in the past year. Figure S9. HIV prevalence predictions from the boosted regression tree model. Figure S10. HIV prevalence predictions from the generalized additive model. Figure S11. HIV prevalence predictions from the lasso regression model. Figure S12. Modeling regions. Figure S13. Age- and sex-specific vs. adult prevalence modeling. Figure S14. Data sensitivity. Figure S15. Model specification validation. Figure S16. Modeled and re-aggregated adult prevalence comparison. Figure S17. HIV prevalence raking factors for males. Figure S18. HIV prevalence raking factors for females. Figure S19. Age-specific HIV prevalence in males, 2000. Figure S20. Age-specific HIV prevalence in females, 2000. Figure S21. Age-specific HIV prevalence in males, 2005. Figure S22. Age-specific HIV prevalence in females, 2005. Figure S23. Age-specific HIV prevalence in males, 2010. Figure S24. Age-specific HIV prevalence in females, 2010. Figure S25. Age-specific HIV prevalence in males, 2018. Figure S26. Age-specific HIV prevalence in females, 2018. Figure S27. Age-specific uncertainty interval range estimates in males, 2000. Figure S28. Age-specific uncertainty interval range estimates in females, 2000. Figure S29. Age-specific uncertainty interval range estimates in males, 2005. Figure S30. Age-specific uncertainty interval range estimates in females, 2005. Figure S31. Age-specific uncertainty interval range estimates in males, 2010. Figure S32. Age-specific uncertainty interval range estimates in females, 2010. Figure S33. Age-specific uncertainty interval range estimates in males, 2018. Figure S34. Age-specific uncertainty interval range estimates in females, 2018. Figure S35. Change in HIV prevalence in males, 2000-2005. Figure S36. Change in HIV prevalence in females, 2000-2005. Figure S37. Change in HIV prevalence in males, 2005-2010. Figure S38. Change in HIV prevalence in females, 2005-2010. Figure S39. Change in HIV prevalence in males, 2010-2018. Figure S40. Change in HIV prevalence in females, 2010-2018. Figure S41. Space mesh for geostatistical models

Additional file 4 of Mapping age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence in adults in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–2018

Additional file 4: Supplemental results.1. README. 2. Prevalence range across districts. 3. Prevalence range between sexes. 4. Prevalence range between ages. 5. Age-specific district ranges

Additional file 1 of Mapping age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence in adults in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–2018

Additional file 1: Supplemental information.1. Compliance with the Guidlines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). 2. HIV data sources and data processing. 3. Covariate and auxiliary data. 4. Statistical model. 5. References

Additional file 2 of Mapping age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence in adults in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–2018

Additional file 2: Supplemental tables.Table S1. HIV seroprevalence survey data. Table S2. ANC sentinel surveillance data. Table S3. HIV and covariates surveys excluded from this analysis. Table S4. Sources for pre-existing covariates. Table S5. HIV covariate survey data. Table S6. Fitted model parameters

Mapping subnational HIV mortality in six Latin American countries with incomplete vital registration systems

Background: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) remains a public health priority in Latin America. While the burden of HIV is historically concentrated in urban areas and high-risk groups, subnational estimates that cover multiple countries and years are missing. This paucity is partially due to incomplete vital registration (VR) systems and statistical challenges related to estimating mortality rates in areas with low numbers of HIV deaths. In this analysis, we address this gap and provide novel estimates of the HIV mortality rate and the number of HIV deaths by age group, sex, and municipality in Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Mexico. Methods: We performed an ecological study using VR data ranging from 2000 to 2017, dependent on individual country data availability. We modeled HIV mortality using a Bayesian spatially explicit mixed-effects regression model that incorporates prior information on VR completeness. We calibrated our results to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Results: All countries displayed over a 40-fold difference in HIV mortality between municipalities with the highest and lowest age-standardized HIV mortality rate in the last year of study for men, and over a 20-fold difference for women. Despite decreases in national HIV mortality in all countries—apart from Ecuador—across the period of study, we found broad variation in relative changes in HIV mortality at the municipality level and increasing relative inequality over time in all countries. In all six countries included in this analysis, 50% or more HIV deaths were concentrated in fewer than 10% of municipalities in the latest year of study. In addition, national age patterns reflected shifts in mortality to older age groups—the median age group among decedents ranged from 30 to 45 years of age at the municipality level in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico in 2017. Conclusions: Our subnational estimates of HIV mortality revealed significant spatial variation and diverging local trends in HIV mortality over time and by age. This analysis provides a framework for incorporating data and uncertainty from incomplete VR systems and can help guide more geographically precise public health intervention to support HIV-related care and reduce HIV-related deaths.</p

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

Subnational mapping of HIV incidence and mortality among individuals aged 15–49 years in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–18: a modelling study

Subnational mapping of HIV incidence and mortality among individuals aged 15–49 years in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–18: a modelling stud

Global investments in pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: development assistance and domestic spending on health between 1990 and 2026

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted gaps in health surveillance systems, disease prevention, and treatment globally. Among the many factors that might have led to these gaps is the issue of the financing of national health systems, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as a robust global system for pandemic preparedness. We aimed to provide a comparative assessment of global health spending at the onset of the pandemic; characterise the amount of development assistance for pandemic preparedness and response disbursed in the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic; and examine expectations for future health spending and put into context the expected need for investment in pandemic preparedness. METHODS: In this analysis of global health spending between 1990 and 2021, and prediction from 2021 to 2026, we estimated four sources of health spending: development assistance for health (DAH), government spending, out-of-pocket spending, and prepaid private spending across 204 countries and territories. We used the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database (GHED) to estimate spending. We estimated development assistance for general health, COVID-19 response, and pandemic preparedness and response using a keyword search. Health spending estimates were combined with estimates of resources needed for pandemic prevention and preparedness to analyse future health spending patterns, relative to need. FINDINGS: In 2019, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, US$9·2 trillion (95$7·3 trillion (95% UI 7·2-7·4) in 2019; 293·7 times the $24·8 billion (95$43·1 billion in development assistance was provided to maintain or improve health. The pandemic led to an unprecedented increase in development assistance targeted towards health; in 2020 and 2021, $1·8 billion in DAH contributions was provided towards pandemic preparedness in LMICs, and$37·8 billion was provided for the health-related COVID-19 response. Although the support for pandemic preparedness is 12·2% of the recommended target by the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP), the support provided for the health-related COVID-19 response is 252·2% of the recommended target. Additionally, projected spending estimates suggest that between 2022 and 2026, governments in 17 (95% UI 11-21) of the 137 LMICs will observe an increase in national government health spending equivalent to an addition of 1% of GDP, as recommended by the HLIP. INTERPRETATION: There was an unprecedented scale-up in DAH in 2020 and 2021. We have a unique opportunity at this time to sustain funding for crucial global health functions, including pandemic preparedness. However, historical patterns of underfunding of pandemic preparedness suggest that deliberate effort must be made to ensure funding is maintained. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation