Summary Background Exposure to ambient air pollution increases morbidity and mortality, and is a leading contributor to global disease burden. We explored spatial and temporal trends in mortality and ...burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution from 1990 to 2015 at global, regional, and country levels. Methods We estimated global population-weighted mean concentrations of particle mass with aerodynamic diameter less than 2·5 μm (PM2·5 ) and ozone at an approximate 11 km × 11 km resolution with satellite-based estimates, chemical transport models, and ground-level measurements. Using integrated exposure–response functions for each cause of death, we estimated the relative risk of mortality from ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and lower respiratory infections from epidemiological studies using non-linear exposure–response functions spanning the global range of exposure. Findings Ambient PM2·5 was the fifth-ranking mortality risk factor in 2015. Exposure to PM2·5 caused 4·2 million (95% uncertainty interval UI 3·7 million to 4·8 million) deaths and 103·1 million (90·8 million 115·1 million) disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2015, representing 7·6% of total global deaths and 4·2% of global DALYs, 59% of these in east and south Asia. Deaths attributable to ambient PM2·5 increased from 3·5 million (95% UI 3·0 million to 4·0 million) in 1990 to 4·2 million (3·7 million to 4·8 million) in 2015. Exposure to ozone caused an additional 254 000 (95% UI 97 000–422 000) deaths and a loss of 4·1 million (1·6 million to 6·8 million) DALYs from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 2015. Interpretation Ambient air pollution contributed substantially to the global burden of disease in 2015, which increased over the past 25 years, due to population ageing, changes in non-communicable disease rates, and increasing air pollution in low-income and middle-income countries. Modest reductions in burden will occur in the most polluted countries unless PM2·5 values are decreased substantially, but there is potential for substantial health benefits from exposure reduction. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Health Effects Institute.
Public health priorities for India Dandona, Rakhi
The Lancet. Public health,
February 2022, 2022-02-00, 20220201, 2022-02-01, Volume:
7, Issue:
2
Journal Article
Financial protection is a key dimension of universal health coverage. Catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) has increased in India over time. The overall figures mask the subnational heterogeneity ...crucial for designing insurance coverage for 1.3 billion population across India. We estimated CHE in every state of India and the changes over a decade.
We used National Sample Survey data on health care utilisation in 2004 and 2014. The states were placed in four groups based on epidemiological transition level (ETL), defined on the basis of ratio of disability-adjusted life-years from communicable diseases to those from non-communicable diseases and injuries combined, with a low ratio denoting high ETL state group. CHE was defined as the proportion of households that had out-of-pocket payments for health care equalling or exceeding 10% of the household expenditure. We assessed variation in the magnitude and distribution of CHE between ETL state groups and between states of India.
In 2014, CHE was higher in the high (30.3%, 95% confidence interval: 28.5 to 32.1) and higher-middle (27.4%, 26.3 to 28.6) ETL state groups than the low (21.8%, 20.8 to 22.8) and lower-middle (19.0%, 17.1 to 21.0) groups. From 2004 to 2014, CHE increased only in the high and higher-middle ETL groups (1.19 and 1.34 times, respectively). However, the individual states with substantial increase in CHE were spread across all ETL groups. The gap between the highest CHE of an individual state and the lowest was 8-fold in 2014. CHE was disproportionately concentrated among the rich in 2004 for most of India, but in 2014 CHE was distributed equally among the rich and poor because of the substantial increase in CHE among the poor over time.
Better provision of quality health care should be accompanied by financial protection measures to safeguard the poor from increasing CHE in India. The state-specific CHE trends can provide useful input for the planning of the recently launched National Health Protection Mission such that it meets the requirement of each state.
With India preparing for the next decennial Census in 2021, we compared the disability estimates and data collection methodology between the Census 2011 and the most recent population-level survey ...for India and its states, to highlight the issues to be addressed to improve robustness of the disability estimates in the upcoming Census.
Data from the Census 2011 and from two complementary nationally representative household surveys that covered all Indian states with the same methodology and survey instruments-the District-Level Household Survey-4 (DLHS-4, 2012-2013) and the Annual Health Surveys (AHS three rounds, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) were used. Data from DLHS-4 and AHS 2012-13 round were pooled to generate estimates for the year 2012-13. Data collection methodology between the sources was compared, including the review of definitions of each type of disability. The overall, mental, visual, hearing, speech, and movement disability rate (DR) per 100,000 population were compared between the sources for India and for each state, and the percent difference in the respective rates was calculated. We explored the reliability of these estimates comparing yearly data from the AHS for three successive rounds.
Survey data were collected through proxy reporting, however, it is not entirely clear whether the data were proxy- or self-reported or a mix of both in the Census. The overall DR was 25.1% higher in the Census (2,242; 95% CI 2,241-2,243) than the survey (1,791; 95% CI 1,786-1,797) per 100,000 population, with the state-level difference ranging from -64% in Tamil Nadu to 107% in Sikkim state. Despite both sources using nearly similar definitions for overall disability and disability by type, the difference in DR was 125.5%, 54.2%, -25.7%, -19.7%, and 21.9% for hearing, speech, mental, movement, and visual DR, respectively. At the state-level, the difference in disability-specific estimates ranged from -84% to 450%. The extent of variations in the disability-specific estimates in AHS successive rounds ranged from -25% to 929% at the state-level.
There is momentum globally towards building disability measurement that is consistent with the data required for monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals to ensure robust estimation of disability. The current estimates from the Census and surveys seem much lower than would be expected at the population level. We make recommendations that India needs to take serious note of in order to improve the validity and reliability of India's disability estimates.
To assess the comparability of out-of-pocket (OOP) payment and catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) estimates from different household surveys in India.
Data on CHE, outpatient and inpatient OOP ...payments and other expenditure from all major national or multi-state surveys since 2000 were compared. These included two consumer expenditure surveys (the National Sample Survey for 2004-05 NSS 2004-05 and 2009-10 NSS 2009-10) and three health-focused surveys (the World Health Survey 2003 WHS 2003; the National Sample Survey on Morbidity, Health Care and the Condition of the Aged 2004 NSS 2004; and the Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health 2007-08 SAGE 2007-08). All but the NSS 2004-05 and the NSS 2009-10 used different questionnaires.
CHE estimates from WHS 2003 and SAGE 2007-08 were twice as high as those from NSS 2004-05, NSS 2009-10 and NSS 2004. Inpatient OOP payment estimates were twice as high in WHS 2003 and SAGE 2007-08 because in these surveys a much higher proportion of households reported such payments. However, estimates of expenditures on other items were half as high in WHS 2003 as in the other surveys because a very small number of items was used to capture these expenditures.
The wide variations observed in CHE and OOP payment estimates resulted from methodological differences. Survey methods used to assess CHE in India need to be standardized and validated to accurately track CHE and assess the impact of recent policies to reduce it.
A recent estimate by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that 161 million persons worldwide have visual impairment, including 37 million blind (best-corrected visual acuity less than 3/60 in ...the better eye) and 124 million with visual impairment less severe than blindness (best-corrected acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 in the better eye). This estimate is quoted widely, but because it is based on definitions using best-corrected visual acuity, uncorrected refractive error as a cause of visual impairment is excluded.
We reviewed data from population-based surveys of visual impairment worldwide published 1996 onwards that included presenting visual acuity, and estimated the proportion of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive error in different sub-regions of the world. We then extrapolated these data to estimate the worldwide burden of visual impairment including that caused by uncorrected refractive error.
The total number of persons with visual impairment worldwide, including that due to uncorrected refractive error, was estimated as 259 million, 61% higher than the commonly quoted WHO estimate. This includes 42 million persons with blindness defined as presenting visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, and 217 million persons with less severe visual impairment level defined as presenting visual acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 in the better eye, 14% and 75% higher, respectively, than the WHO estimates based on best-corrected visual acuity. Sensitivity analysis, taking into account the uncertainty of the proportion of visual impairment caused by refractive error, revealed that the number of persons in the world with visual impairment due to uncorrected refractive error could range from 82 to 117 million.
The actual burden of visual impairment worldwide, including that caused by uncorrected refractive error, is substantially higher than the commonly quoted WHO estimate that is based on best-corrected visual acuity. We suggest that the indicative estimate of 259 million persons with visual impairment worldwide, which includes 42 million blind with visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, be used for further planning of the VISION 2020 initiative instead of the often quoted 161 million estimate that includes 37 million blind.
The existing definitions of visual impairment in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases are based on recommendations made over 30 years ago. New data and knowledge related to visual ...impairment that have accumulated over this period suggest that these definitions need to be revised.
Three major issues need to be addressed in the revision of these definitions. First, the existing definitions are based on best-corrected visual acuity, which exclude uncorrected refractive error as a cause of visual impairment, leading to substantial underestimation of the total visual impairment burden by about 38%. Second, the cut-off level of visual impairment to define blindness in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases is visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, but with increasing human development the visual acuity requirements are also increasing, suggesting that a level less than 6/60 be used to define blindness. Third, the International Statistical Classification of Diseases uses the term 'low vision' for visual impairment level less than blindness, which causes confusion with the common use of this term for uncorrectable vision requiring aids or rehabilitation, suggesting that alternative terms such as moderate and mild visual impairment would be more appropriate for visual impairment less severe than blindness. We propose a revision of the definitions of visual impairment in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases that addresses these three issues. According to these revised definitions, the number of blind persons in the world defined as presenting visual acuity less than 6/60 in the better eye would be about 57 million as compared with the World Health Organization estimate of 37 million using the existing International Statistical Classification of Diseases definition of best-corrected visual acuity less than 3/60 in the better eye, and the number of persons in the world with moderate visual impairment defined as presenting visual acuity less than 6/18 to 6/60 in the better eye would be about 202 million as compared with the World Health Organization estimate of 124 million persons with low vision defined as best-corrected visual acuity less than 6/18 to 3/60 in the better eye.
Our suggested revision of the visual impairment definitions in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases takes into account advances in the understanding of visual impairment. This revised classification seems more appropriate for estimating and tracking visual impairment in the countries and regions of the world than the existing classification in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases.
Notably, many neonatal deaths result from preterm birth—that is, birth earlier than 37 weeks of gestation. ...in terms of the burden of disease, a baby born alive and prematurely at the 24th ...gestational age who dies at birth or right after birth is registered as the worst possible tragedy with 86 DALYs. The built-in ethical tension of perinatal deaths is also well reflected in the etymology of ‘burden’ itself, which can mean both ‘to bear children’ and ‘that is borne’. ...we believe that our concept of disease burden should ideally reflect not only the harm of perinatal deaths that occur after birth but also those that occur before birth. The health community recognises the urgent need to prevent stillbirths, and stillbirth prevention has become an essential part of global child survival initiatives.3 The UN-IGME report has highlighted urgent actions to prevent an estimated 20 million more stillbirths by 2030.3 Importantly, this death toll could likely be higher because of the impact of COVID-19.17 The Lancet Commission emphasises that grieving must be rebalanced and calls on the society to respond to this challenge.1 We respectfully extend this challenge and call on society to embrace stillbirths as the death of a baby, many of whom should have been born alive, which is essential not only for the global child survival initiatives to be effective in preventing further loss of lives but also for providing support for those grieving the loss of lives of their babies. ...real progress in stillbirth prevention can be made by simply recognising stillbirth as a loss of life and not a baby born without life.
PDF
