Towards improved decision support in the assessment and management of pain for people with dementia in hospital: a systematic meta-review and observational study

This is the final version. Available from NIHR Journals Library via the DOI in this record.Background Pain and dementia are common in older people, and impaired cognitive abilities make it difficult for them to communicate their pain. Pain, if poorly managed, impairs health and well-being. Accurate pain assessment in this vulnerable group is challenging for hospital staff, but essential for appropriate management. Robust methods for identifying, assessing and managing pain are needed. Aims and objectives Two studies were undertaken to inform the development of a decision support tool to aid hospital staff in the recognition, assessment and management of pain. The first was a meta-review of systematic reviews of observational pain assessment instruments with three objectives: (1) to identify the tools available to assess pain in adults with dementia; (2) to identify in which settings they were used and with what patient populations; and (3) to assess their reliability, validity and clinical utility. The second was a multisite observational study in hospitals with four objectives: (1) to identify information currently used by clinicians when detecting and managing pain in patients with dementia; (2) to explore existing processes for detecting and managing pain in these patients; (3) to identify the role (actual/potential) of carers in this process; and (4) to explore the organisational context in which health professionals operate. Findings also informed development of health economics data collection forms to evaluate the implementation of a new decision support intervention in hospitals. Methods For the meta-review of systematic reviews, 12 databases were searched. Reviews of observational pain assessment instruments that provided psychometric data were included. Papers were quality assessed and data combined using narrative synthesis. The observational study used an ethnographic approach in 11 wards in four UK hospitals. This included non-participant observation of 31 patients, audits of patient records, semistructured interviews with 52 staff and four carers, informal conversations with staff and carers and analysis of ward documents and policies. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken by the project team. Results Data from eight systematic reviews including 28 tools were included in the meta-review. Most tools showed moderate to good reliability, but information about validity, feasibility and clinical utility was scarce. The observational study showed complex ward cultures and routines, with variations in time spent with patients, communication patterns and management practices. Carer involvement was rare. No pain decision support tools were observed in practice. Information about pain was elicited in different ways, at different times, by different health-care staff and recorded in separate documents. Individual staff made sense of patients’ pain by creating their own ‘overall picture’ from available information. Limitations Grey literature and non-English-language papers were excluded from the meta-review. Sample sizes in the observational study were smaller than planned owing to poor documentation of patients’ dementia diagnoses, gatekeeping by staff and difficulties in gaining consent/assent. Many patients had no or geographically distant carers, or a spouse who was too unwell and/or reluctant to participate. Conclusions No single observational pain scale was clearly superior to any other. The traditional linear concept of pain being assessed, treated and reassessed by single individuals did not ‘fit’ with clinical reality. A new approach enabling effective communication among patients, carers and staff, centralised recording of pain-related information, and an extended range of pain management interventions is proposed [Pain And Dementia Decision Support (PADDS)]. This was not tested with users, but a follow-on study aims to codesign PADDS with carers and clinicians, then introduce education on staff/patient/carer communications and use of PADDS within a structured implementation plan. PADDS will need to be tested in differing ward contexts.National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programm

Use of multidimensional item response theory methods for dementia prevalence prediction: an example using the Health and Retirement Survey and the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study

Background: Data sparsity is a major limitation to estimating national and global dementia burden. Surveys with full diagnostic evaluations of dementia prevalence are prohibitively resource-intensive in many settings. However, validation samples from nationally representative surveys allow for the development of algorithms for the prediction of dementia prevalence nationally. Methods: Using cognitive testing data and data on functional limitations from Wave A (2001–2003) of the ADAMS study (n = 744) and the 2000 wave of the HRS study (n = 6358) we estimated a two-dimensional item response theory model to calculate cognition and function scores for all individuals over 70. Based on diagnostic information from the formal clinical adjudication in ADAMS, we fit a logistic regression model for the classification of dementia status using cognition and function scores and applied this algorithm to the full HRS sample to calculate dementia prevalence by age and sex. Results: Our algorithm had a cross-validated predictive accuracy of 88% (86–90), and an area under the curve of 0.97 (0.97–0.98) in ADAMS. Prevalence was higher in females than males and increased over age, with a prevalence of 4% (3–4) in individuals 70–79, 11% (9–12) in individuals 80–89 years old, and 28% (22–35) in those 90 and older. Conclusions: Our model had similar or better accuracy as compared to previously reviewed algorithms for the prediction of dementia prevalence in HRS, while utilizing more flexible methods. These methods could be more easily generalized and utilized to estimate dementia prevalence in other national surveys

Use of multidimensional item response theory methods for dementia prevalence prediction: an example using the Health and Retirement Survey and the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study.

BACKGROUND: Data sparsity is a major limitation to estimating national and global dementia burden. Surveys with full diagnostic evaluations of dementia prevalence are prohibitively resource-intensive in many settings. However, validation samples from nationally representative surveys allow for the development of algorithms for the prediction of dementia prevalence nationally. METHODS: Using cognitive testing data and data on functional limitations from Wave A (2001-2003) of the ADAMS study (n = 744) and the 2000 wave of the HRS study (n = 6358) we estimated a two-dimensional item response theory model to calculate cognition and function scores for all individuals over 70. Based on diagnostic information from the formal clinical adjudication in ADAMS, we fit a logistic regression model for the classification of dementia status using cognition and function scores and applied this algorithm to the full HRS sample to calculate dementia prevalence by age and sex. RESULTS: Our algorithm had a cross-validated predictive accuracy of 88% (86-90), and an area under the curve of 0.97 (0.97-0.98) in ADAMS. Prevalence was higher in females than males and increased over age, with a prevalence of 4% (3-4) in individuals 70-79, 11% (9-12) in individuals 80-89 years old, and 28% (22-35) in those 90 and older. CONCLUSIONS: Our model had similar or better accuracy as compared to previously reviewed algorithms for the prediction of dementia prevalence in HRS, while utilizing more flexible methods. These methods could be more easily generalized and utilized to estimate dementia prevalence in other national surveys

Global, regional, and national burden of respiratory tract cancers and associated risk factors from 1990 to 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Prevention, control, and treatment of respiratory tract cancers are important steps towards achieving target 3.4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—a one-third reduction in premature mortality due to non-communicable diseases by 2030. We aimed to provide global, regional, and national estimates of the burden of tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer and larynx cancer and their attributable risks from 1990 to 2019. Methods Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 methodology, we evaluated the incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of respiratory tract cancers (ie, tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer and larynx cancer). Deaths from tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer and larynx cancer attributable to each risk factor were estimated on the basis of risk exposure, relative risks, and the theoretical minimum risk exposure level input from 204 countries and territories, stratified by sex and Socio-demographic Index (SDI). Trends were estimated from 1990 to 2019, with an emphasis on the 2010-19 period. Findings Globally, there were 2·26 million (95% uncertainty interval 2·07 to 2·45) new cases of tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer, and 2·04 million (1·88 to 2·19) deaths and 45·9 million (42·3 to 49·3) DALYs due to tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer in 2019. There were 209 000 (194 000 to 225 000) new cases of larynx cancer, and 123 000 (115 000 to 133 000) deaths and 3·26 million (3·03 to 3·51) DALYs due to larynx cancer globally in 2019. From 2010 to 2019, the number of new tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer cases increased by 23·3% (12·9 to 33·6) globally and the number of larynx cancer cases increased by 24·7% (16·0 to 34·1) globally. Global age-standardised incidence rates of tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer decreased by 7·4% (−16·8 to 1·6) and age-standardised incidence rates of larynx cancer decreased by 3 ·0% (−10·5 to 5·0) in males over the past decade; however, during the same period, age-standardised incidence rates in females increased by 0·9% (−8·2 to 10·2) for tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer and decreased by 0·5% (−8·4 to 8·1) for larynx cancer. Furthermore, although age-standardised incidence and death rates declined in both sexes combined from 2010 to 2019 at the global level for tracheal, bronchus, lung and larynx cancers, some locations had rising rates, particularly those on the lower end of the SDI range. Smoking contributed to an estimated 64·2% (61·9–66·4) of all deaths from tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer and 63·4% (56·3–69·3) of all deaths from larynx cancer in 2019. For males and for both sexes combined, smoking was the leading specific risk factor for age-standardised deaths from tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer per 100 000 in all SDI quintiles and GBD regions in 2019. However, among females, household air pollution from solid fuels was the leading specific risk factor in the low SDI quintile and in three GBD regions (central, eastern, and western sub-Saharan Africa) in 2019. Interpretation The numbers of incident cases and deaths from tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer and larynx cancer increased globally during the past decade. Even more concerning, age-standardised incidence and death rates due to tracheal, bronchus, lung cancer and larynx cancer increased in some populations—namely, in the lower SDI quintiles and among females. Preventive measures such as smoking control interventions, air quality management programmes focused on major air pollution sources, and widespread access to clean energy should be prioritised in these settings

Global, regional, and national sex-specific burden and control of the HIV epidemic, 1990–2019, for 204 countries and territories: the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2019

Background: The sustainable development goals (SDGs) aim to end HIV/AIDS as a public health threat by 2030. Understanding the current state of the HIV epidemic and its change over time is essential to this effort. This study assesses the current sex-specific HIV burden in 204 countries and territories and measures progress in the control of the epidemic. Methods: To estimate age-specific and sex-specific trends in 48 of 204 countries, we extended the Estimation and Projection Package Age-Sex Model to also implement the spectrum paediatric model. We used this model in cases where age and sex specific HIV-seroprevalence surveys and antenatal care-clinic sentinel surveillance data were available. For the remaining 156 of 204 locations, we developed a cohort-incidence bias adjustment to derive incidence as a function of cause-of-death data from vital registration systems. The incidence was input to a custom Spectrum model. To assess progress, we measured the percentage change in incident cases and deaths between 2010 and 2019 (threshold >75% decline), the ratio of incident cases to number of people living with HIV (incidence-to-prevalence ratio threshold <0·03), and the ratio of incident cases to deaths (incidence-to-mortality ratio threshold <1·0). Findings: In 2019, there were 36·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 35·1–38·9) people living with HIV worldwide. There were 0·84 males (95% UI 0·78–0·91) per female living with HIV in 2019, 0·99 male infections (0·91–1·10) for every female infection, and 1·02 male deaths (0·95–1·10) per female death. Global progress in incident cases and deaths between 2010 and 2019 was driven by sub-Saharan Africa (with a 28·52% decrease in incident cases, 95% UI 19·58–35·43, and a 39·66% decrease in deaths, 36·49–42·36). Elsewhere, the incidence remained stable or increased, whereas deaths generally decreased. In 2019, the global incidence-to-prevalence ratio was 0·05 (95% UI 0·05–0·06) and the global incidence-to-mortality ratio was 1·94 (1·76–2·12). No regions met suggested thresholds for progress. Interpretation: Sub-Saharan Africa had both the highest HIV burden and the greatest progress between 1990 and 2019. The number of incident cases and deaths in males and females approached parity in 2019, although there remained more females with HIV than males with HIV. Globally, the HIV epidemic is far from the UNAIDS benchmarks on progress metrics. Funding: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Institute on Aging of the NIH

Health sector spending and spending on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and development assistance for health: progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. While a substantial effort has been made to quantify progress towards SDG3, less research has focused on tracking spending towards this goal. We used spending estimates to measure progress in financing the priority areas of SDG3, examine the association between outcomes and financing, and identify where resource gains are most needed to achieve the SDG3 indicators for which data are available

Measuring universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all people receiving the health services they need, of high quality, without experiencing financial hardship. Making progress towards UHC is a policy priority for both countries and global institutions, as highlighted by the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13). Measuring effective coverage at the health-system level is important for understanding whether health services are aligned with countries' health profiles and are of sufficient quality to produce health gains for populations of all ages. Methods: Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we assessed UHC effective coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Drawing from a measurement framework developed through WHO's GPW13 consultation, we mapped 23 effective coverage indicators to a matrix representing health service types (eg, promotion, prevention, and treatment) and five population-age groups spanning from reproductive and newborn to older adults (>= 65 years). Effective coverage indicators were based on intervention coverage or outcome-based measures such as mortality-to-incidence ratios to approximate access to quality care; outcome-based measures were transformed to values on a scale of 0-100 based on the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of location-year values. We constructed the UHC effective coverage index by weighting each effective coverage indicator relative to its associated potential health gains, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years for each location-year and population-age group. For three tests of validity (content, known-groups, and convergent), UHC effective coverage index performance was generally better than that of other UHC service coverage indices from WHO (ie, the current metric for SDG indicator 3.8.1 on UHC service coverage), the World Bank, and GBD 2017. We quantified frontiers of UHC effective coverage performance on the basis of pooled health spending per capita, representing UHC effective coverage index levels achieved in 2019 relative to country-level government health spending, prepaid private expenditures, and development assistance for health. To assess current trajectories towards the GPW13 UHC billion target-1 billion more people benefiting from UHC by 2023-we estimated additional population equivalents with UHC effective coverage from 2018 to 2023. Findings: Globally, performance on the UHC effective coverage index improved from 45.8 (95% uncertainty interval 44.2-47.5) in 1990 to 60.3 (58.7-61.9) in 2019, yet country-level UHC effective coverage in 2019 still spanned from 95 or higher in Japan and Iceland to lower than 25 in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Since 2010, sub-Saharan Africa showed accelerated gains on the UHC effective coverage index (at an average increase of 2.6% [1.9-3.3] per year up to 2019); by contrast, most other GBD super-regions had slowed rates of progress in 2010-2019 relative to 1990-2010. Many countries showed lagging performance on effective coverage indicators for non-communicable diseases relative to those for communicable diseases and maternal and child health, despite non-communicable diseases accounting for a greater proportion of potential health gains in 2019, suggesting that many health systems are not keeping pace with the rising non-communicable disease burden and associated population health needs. In 2019, the UHC effective coverage index was associated with pooled health spending per capita (r=0.79), although countries across the development spectrum had much lower UHC effective coverage than is potentially achievable relative to their health spending. Under maximum efficiency of translating health spending into UHC effective coverage performance, countries would need to reach $1398 pooled health spending per capita (US$ adjusted for purchasing power parity) in order to achieve 80 on the UHC effective coverage index. From 2018 to 2023, an estimated 388.9 million (358.6-421.3) more population equivalents would have UHC effective coverage, falling well short of the GPW13 target of 1 billion more people benefiting from UHC during this time. Current projections point to an estimated 3.1 billion (3.0-3.2) population equivalents still lacking UHC effective coverage in 2023, with nearly a third (968.1 million [903.5-1040.3]) residing in south Asia. Interpretation: The present study demonstrates the utility of measuring effective coverage and its role in supporting improved health outcomes for all people-the ultimate goal of UHC and its achievement. Global ambitions to accelerate progress on UHC service coverage are increasingly unlikely unless concerted action on non-communicable diseases occurs and countries can better translate health spending into improved performance. Focusing on effective coverage and accounting for the world's evolving health needs lays the groundwork for better understanding how close-or how far-all populations are in benefiting from UHC

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

Background: Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is still among the leading causes of disease burden and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and the world is not on track to meet targets set for ending the epidemic by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Precise HIV burden information is critical for effective geographic and epidemiological targeting of prevention and treatment interventions. Age- and sex-specific HIV prevalence estimates are widely available at the national level, and region-wide local estimates were recently published for adults overall. We add further dimensionality to previous analyses by estimating HIV prevalence at local scales, stratified into sex-specific 5-year age groups for adults ages 15–59 years across SSA. Methods: We analyzed data from 91 seroprevalence surveys and sentinel surveillance among antenatal care clinic (ANC) attendees using model-based geostatistical methods to produce estimates of HIV prevalence across 43 countries in SSA, from years 2000 to 2018, at a 5 × 5-km resolution and presented among second administrative level (typically districts or counties) units. Results: We found substantial variation in HIV prevalence across localities, ages, and sexes that have been masked in earlier analyses. Within-country variation in prevalence in 2018 was a median 3.5 times greater across ages and sexes, compared to for all adults combined. We note large within-district prevalence differences between age groups: for men, 50% of districts displayed at least a 14-fold difference between age groups with the highest and lowest prevalence, and at least a 9-fold difference for women. Prevalence trends also varied over time; between 2000 and 2018, 70% of all districts saw a reduction in prevalence greater than five percentage points in at least one sex and age group. Meanwhile, over 30% of all districts saw at least a five percentage point prevalence increase in one or more sex and age group. Conclusions: As the HIV epidemic persists and evolves in SSA, geographic and demographic shifts in prevention and treatment efforts are necessary. These estimates offer epidemiologically informative detail to better guide more targeted interventions, vital for combating HIV in SSA. © 2022, The Author(s).Funding text 1: S Afzal acknowledges support of the Pakistan Society of Medical Infectious Diseases and King Edward Medical University to access the relevant data of HIV from various sources. T W Bärnighausen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor award, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. F Carvalho and E Fernandes acknowledge support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), I.P., in the scope of the project UIDP/04378/2020 and UIDB/04378/2020 of the Research Unit on Applied Molecular Biosciences - UCIBIO and the project LA/P/0140/2020 of the Associate Laboratory Institute for Health and Bioeconomy - i4HB; FCT/MCTES (Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior) through the project UIDB/50006/2020. K Deribe acknowledges support by the Wellcome Trust [grant number 201900/Z/16/Z] as part of his International Intermediate Fellowship. C Herteliu and A Pana are partially supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084. Claudiu Herteliu is partially supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Research Innovation and Digitalization, MCID, project number ID-585-CTR-42-PFE-2021. Y J Kim acknowledges support by the Research Management Centre, Xiamen University Malaysia [No. XMUMRF/2020-C6/ITCM/0004]. S L Koulmane Laxminarayana acknowledges institutional support by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education. K Krishan acknowledges non-financial support from UGC Centre of Advanced Study, CAS II, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. M Kumar would like to acknowledge NIH/FIC K43 TW010716-04. I Landires is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación (SNI), supported by the Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (SENACYT), Panama. V Nuñez-Samudio is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación (SNI), which is supported by Panama’s Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (SENACYT). O O Odukoya was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under the Award Number K43TW010704. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Z Quazi Syed acknowledges support from JNMC, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences. A I Ribeiro was supported by National Funds through FCT, under the ‘Stimulus of Scientific Employment – Individual Support’ program within the contract CEECIND/02386/2018. A M Samy acknowledges the support from a fellowship of the Egyptian Fulbright Mission program and Ain Shams University. R Shrestha acknowledges support from NIDA K01 Award: K01DA051346. N Taveira acknowledges support from FCT and Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) - Portugal Collaborative Research Network in Portuguese speaking countries in Africa (project reference: 332821690), and by the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UE (project reference: RIA2016MC-1615). B Unnikrishnan acknowledges support from Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal. ; Funding text 2: LBD sub-Saharan Africa HIV Prevalence Collaborators S Afzal acknowledges support of the Pakistan Society of Medical Infectious Diseases and King Edward Medical University to access the relevant data of HIV from various sources. T W Bärnighausen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor award, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. F Carvalho and E Fernandes acknowledge support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), I.P., in the scope of the project UIDP/04378/2020 and UIDB/04378/2020 of the Research Unit on Applied Molecular Biosciences - UCIBIO and the project LA/P/0140/2020 of the Associate Laboratory Institute for Health and Bioeconomy - i4HB; FCT/MCTES (Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior) through the project UIDB/50006/2020. K Deribe acknowledges support by the Wellcome Trust [grant number 201900/Z/16/Z] as part of his International Intermediate Fellowship. C Herteliu and A Pana are partially supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084. Claudiu Herteliu is partially supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Research Innovation and Digitalization, MCID, project number ID-585-CTR-42-PFE-2021. Y J Kim acknowledges support by the Research Management Centre, Xiamen University Malaysia [No. XMUMRF/2020-C6/ITCM/0004]. S L Koulmane Laxminarayana acknowledges institutional support by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education. K Krishan acknowledges non-financial support from UGC Centre of Advanced Study, CAS II, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. M Kumar would like to acknowledge NIH/FIC K43 TW010716-04. I Landires is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación (SNI), supported by the Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (SENACYT), Panama. V Nuñez-Samudio is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación (SNI), which is supported by Panama’s Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (SENACYT). O O Odukoya was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under the Award Number K43TW010704. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Z Quazi Syed acknowledges support from JNMC, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences. A I Ribeiro was supported by National Funds through FCT, under the ‘Stimulus of Scientific Employment – Individual Support’ program within the contract CEECIND/02386/2018. A M Samy acknowledges the support from a fellowship of the Egyptian Fulbright Mission program and Ain Shams University. R Shrestha acknowledges support from NIDA K01 Award: K01DA051346. N Taveira acknowledges support from FCT and Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) - Portugal Collaborative Research Network in Portuguese speaking countries in Africa (project reference: 332821690), and by the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UE (project reference: RIA2016MC-1615). B Unnikrishnan acknowledges support from Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal.; Funding text 3: This work was primarily supported by grant OPP1132415 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the report, or decision to publish. The corresponding authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. ; Funding text 4: S Afzal reports leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, unpaid, with the Pakistan society of Community Medicine & Public Health, the Pakistan Association of Medical Editors, and the Pakistan Society of Medical Infectious Diseases, all outside the submitted work. R Ancuceanu reports 5 payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Avvie, Sandoz, and B Braun, all outside the submitted work. T W Bärnighausen reports research grants from the European Union (Horizon 2020 and EIT Health), German Research Foundation (DFG), US National Institutes of Health, German Ministry of Education and Research, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, KfW, UNAIDS, and WHO; consulting fees from KfW on the OSCAR initiative in Vietnam; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with the NIH-funded study “Healthy Options” (PIs: Smith Fawzi, Kaaya), Chair, Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB), German National Committee on the “Future of Public Health Research and Education,” Chair of the scientific advisory board to the EDCTP Evaluation, Member of the UNAIDS Evaluation Expert Advisory Committee, National Institutes of Health Study Section Member on Population and Public Health Approaches to HIV/AIDS (PPAH), US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee for the “Evaluation of Human Resources for Health in the Republic of Rwanda under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR),” University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) Population Aging Research Center (PARC) External Advisory Board Member; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, as co-chair of the Global Health Hub Germany (which was initiated by the German Ministry of Health); all outside the submitted work. J das Neves reports grants or contracts from Ref. 13605 – Programa GÉNESE, Gilead Portugal (PGG/002/2016 – Programa GÉNESE, Gilead Portugal) outside the submitted work. L Dwyer-Lindgren reports support for the present manuscript from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through grant OPP1132415. I Filip reports other financial or non-financial interests from Avicenna Medical and Clinical Research Institute, outside the submitted work. E Haeuser reports support for the present manuscript from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through grant OPP1132415. C Herteliu reports grants from Romanian Ministry of Research Innovation and Digitalization, MCID, for project number ID-585-CTR-42-PFE-2021 (Jan 2022-Jun 2023) “Enhancing institutional performance through development of infrastructure and transdisciplinary research ecosystem within socio-economic domain – PERFECTIS,” from Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, for project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084 (Oct 2018-Sep 2022) “Understanding and modelling time-space patterns of psychology-related inequalities and polarization,” and project number PN-III-P2-2.1-SOL-2020-2-0351 (Jun 2020-Oct 2020) “Approaches within public health management in the context of COVID-19 pandemic,” and from the Ministry of Labour and Social Justice, Romania for project number “Agenda for skills Romania 2020-2025”; all outside the submitted work. J J Jozwiak reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Teva, Amgen, Synexus, Boehringer Ingelheim, Zentiva, and Sanofi as personal fees, all outside the submitted work. J Khubchandani reports other financial interests from Teva Pharmaceuticals, all outside the submitted work. K Krishnan reports other non-financial support from UGC Centre of Advanced Study, CAS II, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India, outside the submitted work. H J Larson reports grants or contracts from the MacArthur Foundation and Merck to London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine, and from the Vaccine Confidence Fund to the University of Washington; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Center for Strategic and International Studies as payment to LSHTM for co-chairing HighLevel Panel and from GSK as personal payment for developing training sessions and lectures; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, pair, with the ApiJect Advisory Board; all outside the submitted work. O O Odukoya reports support for the present manuscript from the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under the Award Number K43TW010704. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. A Pans reports grants from Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, for project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084 (Oct 2018-Sep 2022) “Understanding and modelling time-space patterns of psychology-related inequalities and polarization,” and project number PN-III-P2-2.1-SOL-2020-2-0351 (Jun 2020-Oct 2020) “Approaches within public health management in the context of COVID-19 pandemic,” outside the submitted work. S R Pandi-Perumal reports royalties from Springer for editing services; stock or stock options in Somnogen Canada Inc as the President and Chief Executive Officer; all outside the submitted work. A Radfar reports other financial or non-financial interests from Avicenna Medical and Clinical Research Institute, outside the submitted work. A I Ribeiro reports grants or contracts from National Funds through FCT, under the ‘Stimulus of Scientific Employment – Individual Support’ program within the contract CEECIND/02386/2018, outside the submitted work. J M Ross reports support for the present manuscript from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through grant OPP1132415; grants or contracts from National Institutes of Health and Firland Foundation as payments to their institution; consulting fees from United States Agency for International Development as personal payments, and from KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation as payments to their institution; all outside the submitted work. E Rubagotti reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from the Greenwich China Office and Unviersity Prince Mohammad VI, Morocco, all outside the submitted work. B Sartorius reports grants or contracts from DHSC – GRAM Project; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, as a member of the GBD Scientific Council and a Member of WHO RGHS; all outside the submitted work. J A Singh reports consulting fees from Crealta/Horizon, Medisys, Fidia, PK Med, Two labs Inc, Adept Field Solutions, Clinical Care options, Clearview healthcare partners, Putnam associates, Focus forward, Navigant consulting, Spherix, MedIQ, Jupiter Life Science LLC, UBM LLC, Trio Health, Medscape, WebMD, and Practice Point communications, and the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Rheumatology; payment or honoraria for participating in the speakers bureau for Simply Speaking; support for attending meetings and/or travel from the steering committee of OMERACT, to attend their meeting every 2 years; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board as an unpaid member of the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid, as a member of the steering committee of OMERACT, an international organization that develops measures for clinical trials and receives arm’s length funding from 12 pharmaceutical companies, with the Veterans Affairs Rheumatology Field Advisory Committee as Chair, and with the UAB Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Satellite Center on Network Meta-analysis as a director and editor; stock or stock options in TPT Global Tech, Vaxart pharmaceuticals, Atyu Biopharma, Adaptimmune Therapeutics, GeoVax Labs, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Enzolytics Inc, Series Therapeutics, Tonix Pharmaceuticals, and Charlotte’s Web Holdings Inc. and previously owned stock options in Amarin, Viking, and Moderna pharmaceuticals; all outside the submitted work. N Taveira reports grants or contracts from FCT and Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) – Portugal Collaborative Research Network in Portuguese speaking countries in Africa (Project reference: 332821690) and from European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UE (Project reference: RIA2016MC-1615), as payments made to their institution, all outside the submitted work

Mapping inequalities in exclusive breastfeeding in low- and middle-income countries, 2000–2018

Abstract: Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF)—giving infants only breast-milk for the first 6 months of life—is a component of optimal breastfeeding practices effective in preventing child morbidity and mortality. EBF practices are known to vary by population and comparable subnational estimates of prevalence and progress across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are required for planning policy and interventions. Here we present a geospatial analysis of EBF prevalence estimates from 2000 to 2018 across 94 LMICs mapped to policy-relevant administrative units (for example, districts), quantify subnational inequalities and their changes over time, and estimate probabilities of meeting the World Health Organization’s Global Nutrition Target (WHO GNT) of ≥70% EBF prevalence by 2030. While six LMICs are projected to meet the WHO GNT of ≥70% EBF prevalence at a national scale, only three are predicted to meet the target in all their district-level units by 2030