Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. Methods We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. Findings Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247–308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8–9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34–44] and DALYs by 15% [9–21]) whereas their agestandardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26–30] and DALYs by 27% [24–31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6–46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7–20·8]), Alzheimer’s and other dementias (10·4% [9·0–12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6–10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05–1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5–90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8–35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8–17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable). Interpretation Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies

Effect of change in the CG CAHPS survey instrument recall period on patient experience scores on healthcare utilization

Standardized patient experience survey instruments play an important role in informing healthcare quality and process improvement. However, any changes in standardized instruments can impact the interpretation, trending, and analysis of patient reported data. This study investigates how the change in Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG CAHPS) survey recall period, from 12- to 6-months, can impact the accuracy and quality of patient experience data. This study used primary survey data on patient experience collected in 2016. Analyses included tests of proportion and t-tests for a comparison of: 1) experience ratings, and 2) administrative data to corroborate how accurately respondents report the number of visits received within the recall period. The findings indicated that respondents, on average, underestimated their usage of care based on a 12-month recall period, apart from those who reported just one visit. A shorter 6-month recall period resulted in higher accuracy in reporting the number of actual visits that occurred. Furthermore, experiential measures showed consistently higher scores across measures for Provider Communications, Staff Communications, Timely Access to Care, and Care Coordination for a 6-month recall period compared to a 12-month period. This study showed that it would be difficult to compare CG CAHPS Version 2.0 to Version 3.0 due to recall differences in experiential measures. Given that shorter recall periods tend to be associated with higher CG CAHPS ratings, healthcare stakeholders should consider bias introduced by changes of recall periods in survey instruments. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe

Erratum:Measuring progress and projecting attainment on the basis of past trends of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 (The Lancet (2017) 390(10100) (1423–1459) (S014067361732336X)(10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32336-X))

GBD 2016 SDG Collaborators. Measuring progress and projecting attainment on the basis of past trends of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2017; 390: 1423–59—In figure 8B of this Article (published Online First on Sept 12, 2017), the number of indicator targets has been changed from 1 to 9 for Turkmenistan, from 0 to 1 for Afghanistan, and from 1 to 2 for Yemen. Ettore Beghi, Neeraj Bhala, Hélène Carabin, Raimundas Lunevicius, Donald H Silberberg, and Caitlyn Steiner have been added to the list of GBD 2016 SDG Collaborators. Their affiliations, along with the affiliation of Soumya Swaminathan, have been added to the Affiliations section. These corrections have been made to the online version as of Sept 18, 2017, and the printed Article is correct

Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. Methods We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. Findings Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247–308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8–9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34–44] and DALYs by 15% [9–21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26–30] and DALYs by 27% [24–31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6–46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7–20·8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10·4% [9·0–12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6–10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05–1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5–90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8–35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8–17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable). Interpretation Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies.</p

Measuring progress and projecting attainment on the basis of past trends of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background The UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are grounded in the global ambition of “leaving no one behind”. Understanding today's gains and gaps for the health-related SDGs is essential for decision makers as they aim to improve the health of populations. As part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016), we measured 37 of the 50 health-related SDG indicators over the period 1990–2016 for 188 countries, and then on the basis of these past trends, we projected indicators to 2030. Methods We used standardised GBD 2016 methods to measure 37 health-related indicators from 1990 to 2016, an increase of four indicators since GBD 2015. We substantially revised the universal health coverage (UHC) measure, which focuses on coverage of essential health services, to also represent personal health-care access and quality for several non-communicable diseases. We transformed each indicator on a scale of 0–100, with 0 as the 2·5th percentile estimated between 1990 and 2030, and 100 as the 97·5th percentile during that time. An index representing all 37 health-related SDG indicators was constructed by taking the geometric mean of scaled indicators by target. On the basis of past trends, we produced projections of indicator values, using a weighted average of the indicator and country-specific annualised rates of change from 1990 to 2016 with weights for each annual rate of change based on out-of-sample validity. 24 of the currently measured health-related SDG indicators have defined SDG targets, against which we assessed attainment. Findings Globally, the median health-related SDG index was 56·7 (IQR 31·9–66·8) in 2016 and country-level performance markedly varied, with Singapore (86·8, 95% uncertainty interval 84·6–88·9), Iceland (86·0, 84·1–87·6), and Sweden (85·6, 81·8–87·8) having the highest levels in 2016 and Afghanistan (10·9, 9·6–11·9), the Central African Republic (11·0, 8·8–13·8), and Somalia (11·3, 9·5–13·1) recording the lowest. Between 2000 and 2016, notable improvements in the UHC index were achieved by several countries, including Cambodia, Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, Laos, Turkey, and China; however, a number of countries, such as Lesotho and the Central African Republic, but also high-income countries, such as the USA, showed minimal gains. Based on projections of past trends, the median number of SDG targets attained in 2030 was five (IQR 2–8) of the 24 defined targets currently measured. Globally, projected target attainment considerably varied by SDG indicator, ranging from more than 60% of countries projected to reach targets for under-5 mortality, neonatal mortality, maternal mortality ratio, and malaria, to less than 5% of countries projected to achieve targets linked to 11 indicator targets, including those for childhood overweight, tuberculosis, and road injury mortality. For several of the health-related SDGs, meeting defined targets hinges upon substantially faster progress than what most countries have achieved in the past. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides an updated and expanded evidence base on where the world currently stands in terms of the health-related SDGs. Our improved measure of UHC offers a basis to monitor the expansion of health services necessary to meet the SDGs. Based on past rates of progress, many places are facing challenges in meeting defined health-related SDG targets, particularly among countries that are the worst off. In view of the early stages of SDG implementation, however, opportunity remains to take actions to accelerate progress, as shown by the catalytic effects of adopting the Millennium Development Goals after 2000. With the SDGs' broader, bolder development agenda, multisectoral commitments and investments are vital to make the health-related SDGs within reach of all populations. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation