Prioritization of patients' access to health care services

L'accès aux services de santé et les longs délais d'attente sont l’un des principaux problèmes dans la plupart des pays du monde, dont le Canada et les États-Unis. Les organismes de soins de santé ne peuvent pas augmenter leurs ressources limitées, ni traiter tous les patients simultanément. C'est pourquoi une attention particulière doit être portée à la priorisation d'accès des patients aux services, afin d’optimiser l’utilisation de ces ressources limitées et d’assurer la sécurité des patients. En fait, la priorisation des patients est une pratique essentielle, mais oubliée dans les systèmes de soins de santé à l'échelle internationale. Les principales problématiques que l’on retrouve dans la priorisation des patients sont: la prise en considération de plusieurs critères conflictuels, les données incomplètes et imprécises, les risques associés qui peuvent menacer la vie des patients durant leur mise sur les listes d'attente, les incertitudes présentes dans les décisions des cliniciens et patients, impliquant l'opinion des groupes de décideurs, et le comportement dynamique du système. La priorisation inappropriée des patients en attente de traitement a une incidence directe sur l’inefficacité des prestations de soins de santé, la qualité des soins, et surtout sur la sécurité des patients et leur satisfaction. Inspirés par ces faits, dans cette thèse, nous proposons de nouveaux cadres hybrides pour prioriser les patients en abordant un certain nombre de principales lacunes aux méthodes proposées et utilisées dans la littérature et dans la pratique. Plus précisément, nous considérons tout d'abord la prise de décision collective incluant les multiples critères de priorité, le degré d'importance de chacun de ces critères et de leurs interdépendances dans la procédure d'établissement des priorités pour la priorisation des patients. Puis, nous travaillons sur l'implication des risques associés et des incertitudes présentes dans la procédure de priorisation, dans le but d'améliorer la sécurité des patients. Enfin, nous présentons un cadre global en se concentrant sur tous les aspects mentionnés précédemment, ainsi que l'implication des patients dans la priorisation, et la considération des aspects dynamiques du système dans la priorisation. À travers l'application du cadre global proposé dans le service de chirurgie orthopédique à l'hôpital universitaire de Shohada, et dans un programme clinique de communication augmentative et alternative appelé PACEC à l'Institut de réadaptation en déficience physique de Québec (IRDPQ), nous montrons l'efficacité de nos approches en les comparant avec celles actuellement utilisées. Les résultats prouvent que ce cadre peut être adopté facilement et efficacement dans différents organismes de santé. Notamment, les cliniciens qui ont participé à l'étude ont conclu que le cadre produit une priorisation précise et fiable qui est plus efficace que la méthode de priorisation actuellement utilisée. En résumé, les résultats de cette thèse pourraient être bénéfiques pour les professionnels de la santé afin de les aider à: i) évaluer la priorité des patients plus facilement et précisément, ii) déterminer les politiques et les lignes directrices pour la priorisation et planification des patients, iii) gérer les listes d'attente plus adéquatement, vi) diminuer le temps nécessaire pour la priorisation des patients, v) accroître l'équité et la justice entre les patients, vi) diminuer les risques associés à l’attente sur les listes pour les patients, vii) envisager l'opinion de groupe de décideurs dans la procédure de priorisation pour éviter les biais possibles dans la prise de décision, viii) impliquer les patients et leurs familles dans la procédure de priorisation, ix) gérer les incertitudes présentes dans la procédure de prise de décision, et finalement x) améliorer la qualité des soins.Access to health care services and long waiting times are one of the main issues in most of the countries including Canada and the United States. Health care organizations cannot increase their limited resources nor treat all patients simultaneously. Then, patients’ access to these services should be prioritized in a way that best uses the scarce resources, and to ensure patients’ safety. In fact, patients’ prioritization is an essential but forgotten practice in health care systems internationally. Some challenging aspects in patients’ prioritization problem are: considering multiple conflicting criteria, incomplete and imprecise data, associated risks that threaten patients on waiting lists, uncertainties in clinicians’ decisions, involving a group of decision makers’ opinions, and health system’s dynamic behavior. Inappropriate prioritization of patients waiting for treatment, affects directly on inefficiencies in health care delivery, quality of care, and most importantly on patients’ safety and their satisfaction. Inspired by these facts, in this thesis, we propose novel hybrid frameworks to prioritize patients by addressing a number of main shortcomings of current prioritization methods in the literature and in practice. Specifically, we first consider group decision-making, multiple prioritization criteria, these criteria’s importance weights and their interdependencies in the patients’ prioritization procedure. Then, we work on involving associated risks that threaten patients on waiting lists and handling existing uncertainties in the prioritization procedure with the aim of improving patients’ safety. Finally, we introduce a comprehensive framework focusing on all previously mentioned aspects plus involving patients in the prioritization, and considering dynamic aspects of the system in the patients’ prioritization. Through the application of the proposed comprehensive framework in the orthopedic surgery ward at Shohada University Hospital, and in an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) clinical program called PACEC at the Institute for Disability Rehabilitation in Physics of Québec (IRDPQ), we show the effectiveness of our approaches comparing the currently used ones. The implementation results prove that this framework could be adopted easily and effectively in different health care organizations. Notably, clinicians that participated in the study concluded that the framework produces a precise and reliable prioritization that is more effective than the currently in use prioritization methods. In brief, the results of this thesis could be beneficial for health care professionals to: i) evaluate patients’ priority more accurately and easily, ii) determine policies and guidelines for patients’ prioritization and scheduling, iii) manage waiting lists properly, vi) decrease the time required for patients’ prioritization, v) increase equity and justice among patients, vi) diminish risks that could threaten patients during waiting time, vii) consider all of the decision makers’ opinions in the prioritization procedure to prevent possible biases in the decision-making procedure, viii) involve patients and their families in the prioritization procedure, ix) handle available uncertainties in the decision-making procedure, and x) increase quality of care

Structural modeling of the impact of green transformational leadership on environmental performance with the mediating role of green human resource management and environmental awareness

AbstractThe aim of the current research was to investigate the impact of green transformational leadership on environmental performance with the mediating role of green human resource management and environmental awareness in small and medium businesses of Sirjan Special Economic Zone. This research is applied in terms of purpose, and correlative in terms of nature and method. The statistical population of this research consists of all employees in small and medium businesses of Sirjan Special Economic Zone, whose number has reached 721 people in 2022. Out of this number, 251 people were randomly selected. Statistics of all its members have been selected as a sample and studied in the form of a census. Four standard questionnaires: green transformational leadership of Chen and Chang (2013), environmental performance questionnaire of Melnik et al. (2003) and Daly et al. (2007), green human resource management questionair of Renwick et al. (2013), and environmental awareness of Han and Yoon (2015) was used to collect data. The content validity of the questionnaires was evaluated based on the opinion of experts, and its construct validity was evaluated by the method of confirmatory factor analysis. Their reliability was confirmed by calculating composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The collected data were analyzed by structural equation modeling method with PLS software. The findings of the research indicate that, in general, green transformational leadership has a significant effect on environmental performance with the mediating role of green human resource management and environmental awareness.ExtendedIntroductionStudies show that companies' increasing use of environmental management systems, such as obtaining ISO 14001 certification, prevents pollution, minimizes waste, and emits less greenhouse gases, which in turn can be effective in increasing the performance of companies. Scholars have argued that green HR practices are critical to implementing environmental management systems (Jabbour, 2016) and that human aspects are essential to adopting environmental practices (Sarkis, Gonzalez-Torre & Gravis, Sarkis & Zhou, 2013). Based on this, the integration of human resources with environmental management measures is considered important. For example, researchers such as Jabbour & Jabbour (2016) argued that all stages of environmental management systems need to support human resource management methods. In this study, the green transformational leadership factor has been considered as the determining factors in the adoption and approval of green human resources management and environmental performance. As Singh et al. (2020) argue that leadership that emphasizes understanding, predicting and controlling personal and interpersonal dynamics affective on employees to achieve common goals can be the best predictor for strengthening green innovation and green performance in small and medium-sized companies. Environmental orientation shows the level of employees' commitment in protecting the environment, which is suggested as the second determining factor of green human resource management (Singh et. al., 2020).Previous studies indicate that employees have a significant impact on environmental performance at the performance level and organizational levels. But the main role of the leader is very important because he has a lot of freedom to influence the environmental performance of the company. Environmental management systems in the organization depend on the development and sustainability of their internal competencies and capabilities (Biscotti et al., 2018; Yin & Chimidler 2009) and in that SME due to the lack of capabilities and motivation of employees along with the organizational capabilities necessary to solve the complex challenges of environmental sustainability are known as the biggest main factor. We imagine that leadership and HRM (Leroy et al., 2018) are involved in the development of the company's internal competencies and capabilities, which are necessary from different perspectives for managing people in SMEs (Leroy et al. , 2018).Environmental awareness is a multidimensional concept and is effective on people's information, knowledge, attitudes, tendencies, behaviors, intentions, attempts and actions. This awareness is connected to the psychological factors and impacts the people's tendency towards doing the activities, creation of environmental attitudes and behaviors (Zhang et al. 2014). According to the definition, green transformational leadership, unlike general transformational leadership, focuses on one goal, which is the environment. Based on available literature, green transformational leadership was first proposed by Robertson and Barling in 2013. They defined green transformational leadership as the emergence of a style of transformational leadership in which the content of leadership behaviors is focused on encouraging pro-environmental initiatives (Robertson & Barling, 2013). One of the categories that appears to be able to facilitate the effect of green transformational leadership on the green behaviors of employees is the attitude of employees. Attitude has been defined as the emotional tendency of a person when he evaluates something positively or negatively. According to this definition and the effect that the attitude of human resources can have on their behavior, in this regard, any research was not conducted in Iran. Also very little research has been done in this field abroad. Based on this, the main question of the current research is whether green transformational leadership has an effect on environmental performance with the mediating role of green human resource management and environmental awareness in small and medium businesses of Sirjan Special Economic Zone.Theoretical frameworkGreen transformational leadershipTransformational leadership improves the performance of companies, but what mediates between these two structures has not been resolved and has been the focus of researchers (Para gonzales et al., 2018). The relationship between transformational leadership and firm performance becomes especially important when firms need to be innovative in their processes and products to gain competitive advantage and superior firm performance (e.g., Della Proveta & et al., 2018). In this study, we define green transformational leadership as a leadership behavior in which the main goal of leadership is a clear vision, inspiration, motivation for employees and also supporting their development needs in order to achieve the organization's environmental goals. (Mittal & Darar, 2016; Chen & Chang, 2013).environmental functionToday, the issue of protecting the environment and preventing its destruction has been raised as one of the most important challenges facing the world community, and for this reason, numerous meetings and conferences have been held in the past years, and also many regional and international conventions have been concluded to prevent environmental destruction at the world level, and the Islamic Republic of Iran has signed many of them and has committed to act in line with the goals contained in these conventions. Following these developments, several environmental indicators have been proposed by the United Nations and universities to monitor environmental destruction processes (Jafari & Ahmadpour, 2016).Green human resource managementThe word green has its roots in ecological marketing (Vazifehdoust et al, 2013). In the field of green management topics, human resource management measures have been created under the title of green human resource management. Some researchers associate human resource management with environmental management and call it green human resource management or environmental human resource management (Rinwick & et al., 2013). Researchers have developed specific methods to implement resource management practices. The human resource management system has progressed from the old way of working such as the low level of employee involvement to more collaborative and supportive processes in which employees have opportunities to improve their skills, knowledge, and attitudes (Singh et al., 2019).Environmental awarenessIn this century, human environmental behavior has been the focus of scientists as one of the most important factors affecting the environment. While these behaviors are effective on environmental issues and threats, they are also affected by several factors. Environmental awareness from the point of view of Kaiser (1999) is the amount of information a person has about environmental issues and the effective factors in its expansion and knowledge of how to behave in order to improve these problems. In other words, environmental knowledge or awareness refers to people's practical information about the environment, the ecology of the planet, and the impact of human actions on the environment. Expanding knowledge and awareness of environmental issues is one of the best ways to overcome environmental challenges and achieve sustainable environmental development (Azadkhani et al., 2018).MethodologyThis research is descriptive-correlative in terms of its nature and method, and applied in terms of its purpose. Data collection tools; four standard questionnaires; green transformational leadership of Chen & Chang (2013) with 6 questionnaire scales, environmental performance questionnaire of Melnik et al. (2003) and Daly et al. (2007) with 5 questionnaire scales, green human resource management questionair of Renwick et al. (2013) with 13 items, and environmental awareness (4 questions) of Han & Yoon questionnaire (2015). The statistical population of this research includes all the employees in small and large companies of Sirjan Special Economic Zone, whose number is 721 in 2022, out of which 251 people were randomly selected.Discussion and ResultsThe coefficient of the variable path of green transformational leadership and environmental performance in small and medium companies is 0.921, and the t-statistic is 29.064. The coefficient of the variable path of green transformational leadership and green human resource management in small and medium-sized companies is 0.861 and the t-statistic is 27.671. The variable path coefficient of green transformational leadership and environmental awareness in small and medium-sized companies is 0.782 and the t-statistic is 20.788. The variable path coefficient of green human resource management and environmental performance in small and medium-sized companies is 0.551 and the t-statistic is 8.421. The variable path coefficient of environmental awareness and environmental performance in small and medium-sized companies is 0.470 and the t-value is 7.577. Therefore, green transformational leadership has a significant impact on environmental performance with the mediating role of green human resource management and environmental awareness in small and medium-sized companies.ConclusionThe aim of this research is to investigate the effect of green transformational leadership on green environmental performance with the mediating role of green human resource management and environmental awareness in small and medium businesses of Sirjan Special Economic Zone. The results showed that green transformational leadership has a significant impact on green environmental performance with the mediating role of green human resource management and environmental awareness. That is, by improving green transformational leadership; green human resource management and environmental awareness will be improved, and so will be  the environmental performance as a result. The research results of Darvishmotevali&Altinay (2022) and Singh et al, (2020) are in line with this research and confirm the results of it. There is a significant impact of green transformational leadership on green environmental performance. Our findings show that green transformational leadership plays an important role for the company's environmental performance. Green transformational leadership stimulates a higher level of motivation, trust, cohesion, commitment and performance. Green transformational leadership has a significant impact on green human resource management. Leadership plays an important role in releasing human potential, but from different perspectives. Previous studies have shown different results about whether the leadership in the organization plays a leading role (Singh et al, 2020) in the relationship of the result of green human resource management. Studies have shown that the dimension of transformational leadership significantly affects the management of human resource performance and employees' efficiency (Jia et al, 2020).Green transformational leadership has a significant impact on green environmental awareness. The company's transformational leadership makes employees with green ability and motivation feel comfortable through a supportive environment, and have the opportunity to realize their green potential to help the company create green innovation in use their processes and products to remain relevant and competitive in the markets (Darvishmotevali & Altinay, 2022)There is a significant effect of green human resource management on environmental performance. Also, if the organization has the ability to implement green human resource management policies in the organization and we witness the transfer of cleanliness and health from the organization to the environment, individual and other organizations; this will make the performance improve the environment. The results of the research (Singh et al, 2020) are in line with this research and confirm the result of it. There is a significant impact of green environmental awareness on environmental performance. That is, if the organization is aware of the environment in order to reduce the adverse environmental effects, it will lead to the improvement of the environmental performance. The results of the research (Darvishmotevali&Altinay 2022) are in line with this research and confirm the result of it. If the organization can take environmentally friendly actions, such as: carrying out strategies for awareness of green practices to promote and pursue sustainable business activities that help organizations in the field of creating an environmentally friendly environment; as a result, the company's environmental performance improves

Patient Engagement and its Evaluation Tools – Current Challenges and Future Directions; Comment on “Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review”

Considering the growing recognition of the importance of patient engagement in healthcare decisions, research and delivery systems, it is important to ensure high quality and efficient patient engagement evaluation tools. In this commentary, we will first highlight the definition and importance of patient engagement. Then we discuss the psychometric properties of the patient engagement evaluation tools identified in a recent review on patient engagement in healthcare organization- and system-level decision-making. Lastly, we suggest future directions for patient engagement and its evaluation tools

Global burden and strength of evidence for 88 risk factors in 204 countries and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021:a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BackgroundUnderstanding the health consequences associated with exposure to risk factors is necessary to inform public health policy and practice. To systematically quantify the contributions of risk factor exposures to specific health outcomes, the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 aims to provide comprehensive estimates of exposure levels, relative health risks, and attributable burden of disease for 88 risk factors in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, from 1990 to 2021.MethodsThe GBD 2021 risk factor analysis used data from 54 561 total distinct sources to produce epidemiological estimates for 88 risk factors and their associated health outcomes for a total of 631 risk–outcome pairs. Pairs were included on the basis of data-driven determination of a risk–outcome association. Age-sex-location-year-specific estimates were generated at global, regional, and national levels. Our approach followed the comparative risk assessment framework predicated on a causal web of hierarchically organised, potentially combinative, modifiable risks. Relative risks (RRs) of a given outcome occurring as a function of risk factor exposure were estimated separately for each risk–outcome pair, and summary exposure values (SEVs), representing risk-weighted exposure prevalence, and theoretical minimum risk exposure levels (TMRELs) were estimated for each risk factor. These estimates were used to calculate the population attributable fraction (PAF; ie, the proportional change in health risk that would occur if exposure to a risk factor were reduced to the TMREL). The product of PAFs and disease burden associated with a given outcome, measured in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), yielded measures of attributable burden (ie, the proportion of total disease burden attributable to a particular risk factor or combination of risk factors). Adjustments for mediation were applied to account for relationships involving risk factors that act indirectly on outcomes via intermediate risks. Attributable burden estimates were stratified by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile and presented as counts, age-standardised rates, and rankings. To complement estimates of RR and attributable burden, newly developed burden of proof risk function (BPRF) methods were applied to yield supplementary, conservative interpretations of risk–outcome associations based on the consistency of underlying evidence, accounting for unexplained heterogeneity between input data from different studies. Estimates reported represent the mean value across 500 draws from the estimate's distribution, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) calculated as the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile values across the draws.FindingsAmong the specific risk factors analysed for this study, particulate matter air pollution was the leading contributor to the global disease burden in 2021, contributing 8·0% (95% UI 6·7–9·4) of total DALYs, followed by high systolic blood pressure (SBP; 7·8% [6·4–9·2]), smoking (5·7% [4·7–6·8]), low birthweight and short gestation (5·6% [4·8–6·3]), and high fasting plasma glucose (FPG; 5·4% [4·8–6·0]). For younger demographics (ie, those aged 0–4 years and 5–14 years), risks such as low birthweight and short gestation and unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing (WaSH) were among the leading risk factors, while for older age groups, metabolic risks such as high SBP, high body-mass index (BMI), high FPG, and high LDL cholesterol had a greater impact. From 2000 to 2021, there was an observable shift in global health challenges, marked by a decline in the number of all-age DALYs broadly attributable to behavioural risks (decrease of 20·7% [13·9–27·7]) and environmental and occupational risks (decrease of 22·0% [15·5–28·8]), coupled with a 49·4% (42·3–56·9) increase in DALYs attributable to metabolic risks, all reflecting ageing populations and changing lifestyles on a global scale. Age-standardised global DALY rates attributable to high BMI and high FPG rose considerably (15·7% [9·9–21·7] for high BMI and 7·9% [3·3–12·9] for high FPG) over this period, with exposure to these risks increasing annually at rates of 1·8% (1·6–1·9) for high BMI and 1·3% (1·1–1·5) for high FPG. By contrast, the global risk-attributable burden and exposure to many other risk factors declined, notably for risks such as child growth failure and unsafe water source, with age-standardised attributable DALYs decreasing by 71·5% (64·4–78·8) for child growth failure and 66·3% (60·2–72·0) for unsafe water source. We separated risk factors into three groups according to trajectory over time: those with a decreasing attributable burden, due largely to declining risk exposure (eg, diet high in trans-fat and household air pollution) but also to proportionally smaller child and youth populations (eg, child and maternal malnutrition); those for which the burden increased moderately in spite of declining risk exposure, due largely to population ageing (eg, smoking); and those for which the burden increased considerably due to both increasing risk exposure and population ageing (eg, ambient particulate matter air pollution, high BMI, high FPG, and high SBP).InterpretationSubstantial progress has been made in reducing the global disease burden attributable to a range of risk factors, particularly those related to maternal and child health, WaSH, and household air pollution. Maintaining efforts to minimise the impact of these risk factors, especially in low SDI locations, is necessary to sustain progress. Successes in moderating the smoking-related burden by reducing risk exposure highlight the need to advance policies that reduce exposure to other leading risk factors such as ambient particulate matter air pollution and high SBP. Troubling increases in high FPG, high BMI, and other risk factors related to obesity and metabolic syndrome indicate an urgent need to identify and implement interventions.FundingBill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation.<br/

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021:a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BackgroundRegular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations.MethodsThe Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model—a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates—with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality—which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds.FindingsThe leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2–100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1–290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1–211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4–48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3–37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7–9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles.InterpretationLong-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere.FundingBill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation.<br/

Global age-sex-specific mortality, life expectancy, and population estimates in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1950–2021, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic:a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background Estimates of demographic metrics are crucial to assess levels and trends of population health outcomes. The profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on populations worldwide has underscored the need for timely estimates to understand this unprecedented event within the context of long-term population health trends. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 provides new demographic estimates for 204 countries and territories and 811 additional subnational locations from 1950 to 2021, with a particular emphasis on changes in mortality and life expectancy that occurred during the 2020–21 COVID-19 pandemic period. Methods 22 223 data sources from vital registration, sample registration, surveys, censuses, and other sources were used to estimate mortality, with a subset of these sources used exclusively to estimate excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2026 data sources were used for population estimation. Additional sources were used to estimate migration; the effects of the HIV epidemic; and demographic discontinuities due to conflicts, famines, natural disasters, and pandemics, which are used as inputs for estimating mortality and population. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) was used to generate under-5 mortality rates, which synthesised 30 763 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 1365 surveys and censuses, and 80 other sources. ST-GPR was also used to estimate adult mortality (between ages 15 and 59 years) based on information from 31 642 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 355 surveys and censuses, and 24 other sources. Estimates of child and adult mortality rates were then used to generate life tables with a relational model life table system. For countries with large HIV epidemics, life tables were adjusted using independent estimates of HIV-specific mortality generated via an epidemiological analysis of HIV prevalence surveys, antenatal clinic serosurveillance, and other data sources. Excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 was determined by subtracting observed all-cause mortality (adjusted for late registration and mortality anomalies) from the mortality expected in the absence of the pandemic. Expected mortality was calculated based on historical trends using an ensemble of models. In location-years where all-cause mortality data were unavailable, we estimated excess mortality rates using a regression model with covariates pertaining to the pandemic. Population size was computed using a Bayesian hierarchical cohort component model. Life expectancy was calculated using age-specific mortality rates and standard demographic methods. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were calculated for every metric using the 25th and 975th ordered values from a 1000-draw posterior distribution. Findings Global all-cause mortality followed two distinct patterns over the study period: age-standardised mortality rates declined between 1950 and 2019 (a 62·8% [95% UI 60·5–65·1] decline), and increased during the COVID-19 pandemic period (2020–21; 5·1% [0·9–9·6] increase). In contrast with the overall reverse in mortality trends during the pandemic period, child mortality continued to decline, with 4·66 million (3·98–5·50) global deaths in children younger than 5 years in 2021 compared with 5·21 million (4·50–6·01) in 2019. An estimated 131 million (126–137) people died globally from all causes in 2020 and 2021 combined, of which 15·9 million (14·7–17·2) were due to the COVID-19 pandemic (measured by excess mortality, which includes deaths directly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and those indirectly due to other social, economic, or behavioural changes associated with the pandemic). Excess mortality rates exceeded 150 deaths per 100 000 population during at least one year of the pandemic in 80 countries and territories, whereas 20 nations had a negative excess mortality rate in 2020 or 2021, indicating that all-cause mortality in these countries was lower during the pandemic than expected based on historical trends. Between 1950 and 2021, global life expectancy at birth increased by 22·7 years (20·8–24·8), from 49·0 years (46·7–51·3) to 71·7 years (70·9–72·5). Global life expectancy at birth declined by 1·6 years (1·0–2·2) between 2019 and 2021, reversing historical trends. An increase in life expectancy was only observed in 32 (15·7%) of 204 countries and territories between 2019 and 2021. The global population reached 7·89 billion (7·67–8·13) people in 2021, by which time 56 of 204 countries and territories had peaked and subsequently populations have declined. The largest proportion of population growth between 2020 and 2021 was in sub-Saharan Africa (39·5% [28·4–52·7]) and south Asia (26·3% [9·0–44·7]). From 2000 to 2021, the ratio of the population aged 65 years and older to the population aged younger than 15 years increased in 188 (92·2%) of 204 nations. Interpretation Global adult mortality rates markedly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, reversing past decreasing trends, while child mortality rates continued to decline, albeit more slowly than in earlier years. Although COVID-19 had a substantial impact on many demographic indicators during the first 2 years of the pandemic, overall global health progress over the 72 years evaluated has been profound, with considerable improvements in mortality and life expectancy. Additionally, we observed a deceleration of global population growth since 2017, despite steady or increasing growth in lower-income countries, combined with a continued global shift of population age structures towards older ages. These demographic changes will likely present future challenges to health systems, economies, and societies. The comprehensive demographic estimates reported here will enable researchers, policy makers, health practitioners, and other key stakeholders to better understand and address the profound changes that have occurred in the global health landscape following the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and longer-term trends beyond the pandemic. Funding Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation.<br/

Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100:a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BackgroundAccurate assessments of current and future fertility—including overall trends and changing population age structures across countries and regions—are essential to help plan for the profound social, economic, environmental, and geopolitical challenges that these changes will bring. Estimates and projections of fertility are necessary to inform policies involving resource and health-care needs, labour supply, education, gender equality, and family planning and support. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 produced up-to-date and comprehensive demographic assessments of key fertility indicators at global, regional, and national levels from 1950 to 2021 and forecast fertility metrics to 2100 based on a reference scenario and key policy-dependent alternative scenarios.MethodsTo estimate fertility indicators from 1950 to 2021, mixed-effects regression models and spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression were used to synthesise data from 8709 country-years of vital and sample registrations, 1455 surveys and censuses, and 150 other sources, and to generate age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) for 5-year age groups from age 10 years to 54 years. ASFRs were summed across age groups to produce estimates of total fertility rate (TFR). Livebirths were calculated by multiplying ASFR and age-specific female population, then summing across ages 10–54 years. To forecast future fertility up to 2100, our Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) forecasting model was based on projections of completed cohort fertility at age 50 years (CCF50; the average number of children born over time to females from a specified birth cohort), which yields more stable and accurate measures of fertility than directly modelling TFR. CCF50 was modelled using an ensemble approach in which three sub-models (with two, three, and four covariates variously consisting of female educational attainment, contraceptive met need, population density in habitable areas, and under-5 mortality) were given equal weights, and analyses were conducted utilising the MR-BRT (meta-regression—Bayesian, regularised, trimmed) tool. To capture time-series trends in CCF50 not explained by these covariates, we used a first-order autoregressive model on the residual term. CCF50 as a proportion of each 5-year ASFR was predicted using a linear mixed-effects model with fixed-effects covariates (female educational attainment and contraceptive met need) and random intercepts for geographical regions. Projected TFRs were then computed for each calendar year as the sum of single-year ASFRs across age groups. The reference forecast is our estimate of the most likely fertility future given the model, past fertility, forecasts of covariates, and historical relationships between covariates and fertility. We additionally produced forecasts for multiple alternative scenarios in each location: the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for education is achieved by 2030; the contraceptive met need SDG is achieved by 2030; pro-natal policies are enacted to create supportive environments for those who give birth; and the previous three scenarios combined. Uncertainty from past data inputs and model estimation was propagated throughout analyses by taking 1000 draws for past and present fertility estimates and 500 draws for future forecasts from the estimated distribution for each metric, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) given as the 2·5 and 97·5 percentiles of the draws. To evaluate the forecasting performance of our model and others, we computed skill values—a metric assessing gain in forecasting accuracy—by comparing predicted versus observed ASFRs from the past 15 years (2007–21). A positive skill metric indicates that the model being evaluated performs better than the baseline model (here, a simplified model holding 2007 values constant in the future), and a negative metric indicates that the evaluated model performs worse than baseline.FindingsDuring the period from 1950 to 2021, global TFR more than halved, from 4·84 (95% UI 4·63–5·06) to 2·23 (2·09–2·38). Global annual livebirths peaked in 2016 at 142 million (95% UI 137–147), declining to 129 million (121–138) in 2021. Fertility rates declined in all countries and territories since 1950, with TFR remaining above 2·1—canonically considered replacement-level fertility—in 94 (46·1%) countries and territories in 2021. This included 44 of 46 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, which was the super-region with the largest share of livebirths in 2021 (29·2% [28·7–29·6]). 47 countries and territories in which lowest estimated fertility between 1950 and 2021 was below replacement experienced one or more subsequent years with higher fertility; only three of these locations rebounded above replacement levels. Future fertility rates were projected to continue to decline worldwide, reaching a global TFR of 1·83 (1·59–2·08) in 2050 and 1·59 (1·25–1·96) in 2100 under the reference scenario. The number of countries and territories with fertility rates remaining above replacement was forecast to be 49 (24·0%) in 2050 and only six (2·9%) in 2100, with three of these six countries included in the 2021 World Bank-defined low-income group, all located in the GBD super-region of sub-Saharan Africa. The proportion of livebirths occurring in sub-Saharan Africa was forecast to increase to more than half of the world's livebirths in 2100, to 41·3% (39·6–43·1) in 2050 and 54·3% (47·1–59·5) in 2100. The share of livebirths was projected to decline between 2021 and 2100 in most of the six other super-regions—decreasing, for example, in south Asia from 24·8% (23·7–25·8) in 2021 to 16·7% (14·3–19·1) in 2050 and 7·1% (4·4–10·1) in 2100—but was forecast to increase modestly in the north Africa and Middle East and high-income super-regions. Forecast estimates for the alternative combined scenario suggest that meeting SDG targets for education and contraceptive met need, as well as implementing pro-natal policies, would result in global TFRs of 1·65 (1·40–1·92) in 2050 and 1·62 (1·35–1·95) in 2100. The forecasting skill metric values for the IHME model were positive across all age groups, indicating that the model is better than the constant prediction.InterpretationFertility is declining globally, with rates in more than half of all countries and territories in 2021 below replacement level. Trends since 2000 show considerable heterogeneity in the steepness of declines, and only a small number of countries experienced even a slight fertility rebound after their lowest observed rate, with none reaching replacement level. Additionally, the distribution of livebirths across the globe is shifting, with a greater proportion occurring in the lowest-income countries. Future fertility rates will continue to decline worldwide and will remain low even under successful implementation of pro-natal policies. These changes will have far-reaching economic and societal consequences due to ageing populations and declining workforces in higher-income countries, combined with an increasing share of livebirths among the already poorest regions of the world.FundingBill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation

Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background Accurate assessments of current and future fertility—including overall trends and changing population age structures across countries and regions—are essential to help plan for the profound social, economic, environmental, and geopolitical challenges that these changes will bring. Estimates and projections of fertility are necessary to inform policies involving resource and health-care needs, labour supply, education, gender equality, and family planning and support. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 produced up-to-date and comprehensive demographic assessments of key fertility indicators at global, regional, and national levels from 1950 to 2021 and forecast fertility metrics to 2100 based on a reference scenario and key policy-dependent alternative scenarios. Methods To estimate fertility indicators from 1950 to 2021, mixed-effects regression models and spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression were used to synthesise data from 8709 country-years of vital and sample registrations, 1455 surveys and censuses, and 150 other sources, and to generate age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) for 5-year age groups from age 10 years to 54 years. ASFRs were summed across age groups to produce estimates of total fertility rate (TFR). Livebirths were calculated by multiplying ASFR and age-specific female population, then summing across ages 10–54 years. To forecast future fertility up to 2100, our Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) forecasting model was based on projections of completed cohort fertility at age 50 years (CCF50; the average number of children born over time to females from a specified birth cohort), which yields more stable and accurate measures of fertility than directly modelling TFR. CCF50 was modelled using an ensemble approach in which three sub-models (with two, three, and four covariates variously consisting of female educational attainment, contraceptive met need, population density in habitable areas, and under-5 mortality) were given equal weights, and analyses were conducted utilising the MR-BRT (meta-regression—Bayesian, regularised, trimmed) tool. To capture time-series trends in CCF50 not explained by these covariates, we used a first-order autoregressive model on the residual term. CCF50 as a proportion of each 5-year ASFR was predicted using a linear mixed-effects model with fixed-effects covariates (female educational attainment and contraceptive met need) and random intercepts for geographical regions. Projected TFRs were then computed for each calendar year as the sum of single-year ASFRs across age groups. The reference forecast is our estimate of the most likely fertility future given the model, past fertility, forecasts of covariates, and historical relationships between covariates and fertility. We additionally produced forecasts for multiple alternative scenarios in each location: the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for education is achieved by 2030; the contraceptive met need SDG is achieved by 2030; pro-natal policies are enacted to create supportive environments for those who give birth; and the previous three scenarios combined. Uncertainty from past data inputs and model estimation was propagated throughout analyses by taking 1000 draws for past and present fertility estimates and 500 draws for future forecasts from the estimated distribution for each metric, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) given as the 2·5 and 97·5 percentiles of the draws. To evaluate the forecasting performance of our model and others, we computed skill values—a metric assessing gain in forecasting accuracy—by comparing predicted versus observed ASFRs from the past 15 years (2007–21). A positive skill metric indicates that the model being evaluated performs better than the baseline model (here, a simplified model holding 2007 values constant in the future), and a negative metric indicates that the evaluated model performs worse than baseline. Findings During the period from 1950 to 2021, global TFR more than halved, from 4·84 (95% UI 4·63–5·06) to 2·23 (2·09–2·38). Global annual livebirths peaked in 2016 at 142 million (95% UI 137–147), declining to 129 million (121–138) in 2021. Fertility rates declined in all countries and territories since 1950, with TFR remaining above 2·1—canonically considered replacement-level fertility—in 94 (46·1%) countries and territories in 2021. This included 44 of 46 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, which was the super-region with the largest share of livebirths in 2021 (29·2% [28·7–29·6]). 47 countries and territories in which lowest estimated fertility between 1950 and 2021 was below replacement experienced one or more subsequent years with higher fertility; only three of these locations rebounded above replacement levels. Future fertility rates were projected to continue to decline worldwide, reaching a global TFR of 1·83 (1·59–2·08) in 2050 and 1·59 (1·25–1·96) in 2100 under the reference scenario. The number of countries and territories with fertility rates remaining above replacement was forecast to be 49 (24·0%) in 2050 and only six (2·9%) in 2100, with three of these six countries included in the 2021 World Bank-defined low-income group, all located in the GBD super-region of sub-Saharan Africa. The proportion of livebirths occurring in sub-Saharan Africa was forecast to increase to more than half of the world's livebirths in 2100, to 41·3% (39·6–43·1) in 2050 and 54·3% (47·1–59·5) in 2100. The share of livebirths was projected to decline between 2021 and 2100 in most of the six other super-regions—decreasing, for example, in south Asia from 24·8% (23·7–25·8) in 2021 to 16·7% (14·3–19·1) in 2050 and 7·1% (4·4–10·1) in 2100—but was forecast to increase modestly in the north Africa and Middle East and high-income super-regions. Forecast estimates for the alternative combined scenario suggest that meeting SDG targets for education and contraceptive met need, as well as implementing pro-natal policies, would result in global TFRs of 1·65 (1·40–1·92) in 2050 and 1·62 (1·35–1·95) in 2100. The forecasting skill metric values for the IHME model were positive across all age groups, indicating that the model is better than the constant prediction. Interpretation Fertility is declining globally, with rates in more than half of all countries and territories in 2021 below replacement level. Trends since 2000 show considerable heterogeneity in the steepness of declines, and only a small number of countries experienced even a slight fertility rebound after their lowest observed rate, with none reaching replacement level. Additionally, the distribution of livebirths across the globe is shifting, with a greater proportion occurring in the lowest-income countries. Future fertility rates will continue to decline worldwide and will remain low even under successful implementation of pro-natal policies. These changes will have far-reaching economic and societal consequences due to ageing populations and declining workforces in higher-income countries, combined with an increasing share of livebirths among the already poorest regions of the world

Global age-sex-specific mortality, life expectancy, and population estimates in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1950–2021, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background Estimates of demographic metrics are crucial to assess levels and trends of population health outcomes. The profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on populations worldwide has underscored the need for timely estimates to understand this unprecedented event within the context of long-term population health trends. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 provides new demographic estimates for 204 countries and territories and 811 additional subnational locations from 1950 to 2021, with a particular emphasis on changes in mortality and life expectancy that occurred during the 2020–21 COVID-19 pandemic period. Methods 22 223 data sources from vital registration, sample registration, surveys, censuses, and other sources were used to estimate mortality, with a subset of these sources used exclusively to estimate excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2026 data sources were used for population estimation. Additional sources were used to estimate migration; the effects of the HIV epidemic; and demographic discontinuities due to conflicts, famines, natural disasters, and pandemics, which are used as inputs for estimating mortality and population. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) was used to generate under-5 mortality rates, which synthesised 30 763 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 1365 surveys and censuses, and 80 other sources. ST-GPR was also used to estimate adult mortality (between ages 15 and 59 years) based on information from 31 642 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 355 surveys and censuses, and 24 other sources. Estimates of child and adult mortality rates were then used to generate life tables with a relational model life table system. For countries with large HIV epidemics, life tables were adjusted using independent estimates of HIV-specific mortality generated via an epidemiological analysis of HIV prevalence surveys, antenatal clinic serosurveillance, and other data sources. Excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 was determined by subtracting observed all-cause mortality (adjusted for late registration and mortality anomalies) from the mortality expected in the absence of the pandemic. Expected mortality was calculated based on historical trends using an ensemble of models. In location-years where all-cause mortality data were unavailable, we estimated excess mortality rates using a regression model with covariates pertaining to the pandemic. Population size was computed using a Bayesian hierarchical cohort component model. Life expectancy was calculated using age-specific mortality rates and standard demographic methods. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were calculated for every metric using the 25th and 975th ordered values from a 1000-draw posterior distribution. Findings Global all-cause mortality followed two distinct patterns over the study period: age-standardised mortality rates declined between 1950 and 2019 (a 62·8% [95% UI 60·5–65·1] decline), and increased during the COVID-19 pandemic period (2020–21; 5·1% [0·9–9·6] increase). In contrast with the overall reverse in mortality trends during the pandemic period, child mortality continued to decline, with 4·66 million (3·98–5·50) global deaths in children younger than 5 years in 2021 compared with 5·21 million (4·50–6·01) in 2019. An estimated 131 million (126–137) people died globally from all causes in 2020 and 2021 combined, of which 15·9 million (14·7–17·2) were due to the COVID-19 pandemic (measured by excess mortality, which includes deaths directly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and those indirectly due to other social, economic, or behavioural changes associated with the pandemic). Excess mortality rates exceeded 150 deaths per 100 000 population during at least one year of the pandemic in 80 countries and territories, whereas 20 nations had a negative excess mortality rate in 2020 or 2021, indicating that all-cause mortality in these countries was lower during the pandemic than expected based on historical trends. Between 1950 and 2021, global life expectancy at birth increased by 22·7 years (20·8–24·8), from 49·0 years (46·7–51·3) to 71·7 years (70·9–72·5). Global life expectancy at birth declined by 1·6 years (1·0–2·2) between 2019 and 2021, reversing historical trends. An increase in life expectancy was only observed in 32 (15·7%) of 204 countries and territories between 2019 and 2021. The global population reached 7·89 billion (7·67–8·13) people in 2021, by which time 56 of 204 countries and territories had peaked and subsequently populations have declined. The largest proportion of population growth between 2020 and 2021 was in sub-Saharan Africa (39·5% [28·4–52·7]) and south Asia (26·3% [9·0–44·7]). From 2000 to 2021, the ratio of the population aged 65 years and older to the population aged younger than 15 years increased in 188 (92·2%) of 204 nations. Interpretation Global adult mortality rates markedly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, reversing past decreasing trends, while child mortality rates continued to decline, albeit more slowly than in earlier years. Although COVID-19 had a substantial impact on many demographic indicators during the first 2 years of the pandemic, overall global health progress over the 72 years evaluated has been profound, with considerable improvements in mortality and life expectancy. Additionally, we observed a deceleration of global population growth since 2017, despite steady or increasing growth in lower-income countries, combined with a continued global shift of population age structures towards older ages. These demographic changes will likely present future challenges to health systems, economies, and societies. The comprehensive demographic estimates reported here will enable researchers, policy makers, health practitioners, and other key stakeholders to better understand and address the profound changes that have occurred in the global health landscape following the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and longer-term trends beyond the pandemic

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. Methods The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model—a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates—with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality—which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. Findings The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2–100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1–290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1–211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4–48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3–37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7–9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. Interpretation Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere