Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a scoping literature review

Archives of Public Health

Systematic Review

Vera Pinheiro¹  Alicia Padron-Monedero²  Isabel Noguer²  Rodrigo Sarmiento³  Dietrich Plass⁴  Elena Von der Lippe⁵  Vanessa Gorasso⁶  Brecht Devleesschauwer⁷  Jane Idavain⁸  Periklis Charalampous⁹  Juanita A. Haagsma⁹  Lea Sletting Jakobsen^1,10  Joana Nazaré Morgado^1,11  João Vasco Santos^1,12  Sara M. Pires^1,13  Che Henry Ngwa^1,14 

[1] CINTESIS, Centre for Health Technology and Services Research, Porto, Portugal;Public Health Unit, Matosinhos Local Health Unit, Matosinhos, Portugal;Carlos III Institute of Health, National School of Public Health, Madrid, Spain;Carlos III Institute of Health, National School of Public Health, Madrid, Spain;Medicine School, University of Applied and Environmental Sciences, Bogota, Colombia;Department for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Health Indicators, German Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany;Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany;Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium;Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium;Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium;Department of Translational Physiology, Infectiology and Public Health, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium;Department of Health Statistics, National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia;Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;Division for Diet, Disease Prevention and Toxicology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark;Environmental Health and Nutrition Laboratory, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal;MEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal;CINTESIS, Centre for Health Technology and Services Research, Porto, Portugal;Public Health Unit, ACES Grande Porto V - Porto Ocidental, Porto, Portugal;National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark;School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden;Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon;

关键词: Burden of disease;    Comparative risk assessment;    Risk factors;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13690-023-01119-x

 received in 2023-02-03, accepted in 2023-05-24,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

ObjectivesWithin the framework of the burden of disease (BoD) approach, disease and injury burden estimates attributable to risk factors are a useful guide for policy formulation and priority setting in disease prevention. Considering the important differences in methods, and their impact on burden estimates, we conducted a scoping literature review to: (1) map the BoD assessments including risk factors performed across Europe; and (2) identify the methodological choices in comparative risk assessment (CRA) and risk assessment methods.MethodsWe searched multiple literature databases, including grey literature websites and targeted public health agencies websites.ResultsA total of 113 studies were included in the synthesis and further divided into independent BoD assessments (54 studies) and studies linked to the Global Burden of Disease (59 papers). Our results showed that the methods used to perform CRA varied substantially across independent European BoD studies. While there were some methodological choices that were more common than others, we did not observe patterns in terms of country, year or risk factor. Each methodological choice can affect the comparability of estimates between and within countries and/or risk factors, since they might significantly influence the quantification of the attributable burden. From our analysis we observed that the use of CRA was less common for some types of risk factors and outcomes. These included environmental and occupational risk factors, which are more likely to use bottom-up approaches for health outcomes where disease envelopes may not be available.ConclusionsOur review also highlighted misreporting, the lack of uncertainty analysis and the under-investigation of causal relationships in BoD studies. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting BoD studies will help understand differences, avoid misinterpretations thus improving comparability among estimates.RegistrationThe study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020177477 (available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2023

【 图 表 】

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 2

Fig. 1