Background The amount of resources, particularly prepaid resources, available for health can affect access to health care and health outcomes. Although health spending tends to increase with economic development, tremendous variation exists among health financing systems. Estimates of future spending can be beneficial for policy makers and planners, and can identify financing gaps. In this study, we estimate future gross domestic product (GDP), all-sector government spending, and health spending disaggregated by source, and we compare expected future spending to potential future spending. Methods We extracted GDP, government spending in 184 countries from 1980-2015, and health spend data from 1995-2014. We used a series of ensemble models to estimate future GDP, all-sector government spending, development assistance for health, and government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending through 2040. We used frontier analyses to identify patterns exhibited by the countries that dedicate the most funding to health, and used these frontiers to estimate potential health spending for each low-income or middle-income country. All estimates are inflation and purchasing power adjusted. Findings We estimated that global spending on health will increase from US$9.21 trillion in 2014 to $24.24 trillion (uncertainty interval [UI] 20.47-29.72) in 2040. We expect per capita health spending to increase fastest in upper-middle-income countries, at 5.3% (UI 4.1-6.8) per year. This growth is driven by continued growth in GDP, government spending, and government health spending. Lower-middle income countries are expected to grow at 4.2% (3.8-4.9). High-income countries are expected to grow at 2.1% (UI 1.8-2.4) and low-income countries are expected to grow at 1.8% (1.0-2.8). Despite this growth, health spending per capita in low-income countries is expected to remain low, at $154 (UI 133-181) per capita in 2030 and $195 (157-258) per capita in 2040. Increases in national health spending to reach the level of the countries who spend the most on health, relative to their level of economic development, would mean $321 (157-258) per capita was available for health in 2040 in low-income countries. Interpretation Health spending is associated with economic development but past trends and relationships suggest that spending will remain variable, and low in some low-resource settings. Policy change could lead to increased health spending, although for the poorest countries external support might remain essential. ; Peer reviewed
Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) requires health financing systems that provide prepaid pooled resources for key health services without placing undue financial stress on households. Understanding current and future trajectories of health financing is vital for progress towards UHC. We used historical health financing data for 188 countries from 1995 to 2015 to estimate future scenarios of health spending and pooled health spending through to 2040.We extracted historical data on gross domestic product (GDP) and health spending for 188 countries from 1995 to 2015, and projected annual GDP, development assistance for health, and government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending from 2015 through to 2040 as a reference scenario. These estimates were generated using an ensemble of models that varied key demographic and socioeconomic determinants. We generated better and worse alternative future scenarios based on the global distribution of historic health spending growth rates. Last, we used stochastic frontier analysis to investigate the association between pooled health resources and UHC index, a measure of a country's UHC service coverage. Finally, we estimated future UHC performance and the number of people covered under the three future scenarios.
BACKGROUND: The number of individuals living with dementia is increasing, negatively affecting families, communities, and health-care systems around the world. A successful response to these challenges requires an accurate understanding of the dementia disease burden. We aimed to present the first detailed analysis of the global prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of dementia as captured by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016, and highlight the most important messages for clinicians and neurologists. METHODS: GBD 2016 obtained data on dementia from vital registration systems, published scientific literature and surveys, and data from health-service encounters on deaths, excess mortality, prevalence, and incidence from 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016, through systematic review and additional data-seeking efforts. To correct for differences in cause of death coding across time and locations, we modelled mortality due to dementia using prevalence data and estimates of excess mortality derived from countries that were most likely to code deaths to dementia relative to prevalence. Data were analysed by standardised methods to estimate deaths, prevalence, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; computed as the sum of YLLs and YLDs), and the fractions of these metrics that were attributable to four risk factors that met GBD criteria for assessment (high body-mass index [BMI], high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a diet high in sugar-sweetened beverages). FINDINGS: In 2016, the global number of individuals who lived with dementia was 43·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 37·8-51·0), increased from 20.2 million (17·4-23·5) in 1990. This increase of 117% (95% UI 114-121) contrasted with a minor increase in age-standardised prevalence of 1·7% (1·0-2·4), from 701 cases (95% UI 602-815) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 712 cases (614-828) per 100 000 population in 2016. More women than men had dementia in 2016 (27·0 million, 95% UI 23·3-31·4, vs 16.8 million, 14.4-19.6), and dementia was the fifth leading cause of death globally, accounting for 2·4 million (95% UI 2·1-2·8) deaths. Overall, 28·8 million (95% UI 24·5-34·0) DALYs were attributed to dementia; 6·4 million (95% UI 3·4-10·5) of these could be attributed to the modifiable GBD risk factors of high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages. INTERPRETATION: The global number of people living with dementia more than doubled from 1990 to 2016, mainly due to increases in population ageing and growth. Although differences in coding for causes of death and the heterogeneity in case-ascertainment methods constitute major challenges to the estimation of the burden of dementia, future analyses should improve on the methods for the correction of these biases. Until breakthroughs are made in prevention or curative treatment, dementia will constitute an increasing challenge to health-care systems worldwide. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ; AA received financial support from the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, (New Delhi, India) through the INSPIRE Faculty program. MSBS received Australian Government Research and Training Program funding for post-graduates to study at the Australian National University (Canberra, ACT, Australia). FC acknowledges support from the European Union (FEDER funds POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007728 and POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007265) and National Funds (FCT/MEC, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia and Ministério da Educação e Ciência) under the Partnership Agreements PT2020 UID/MULTI/04378/2013 and PT2020 UID/QUI/50006/2013. EC is supported by an Australian Research Council Future fellowship (FT3 140100085). AK was supported by the Miguel Servet contract financed by the CP13/00150 and PI15/00862 projects, integrated into the National R + D + I and funded by the ISCIII (General Branch Evaluation and Promotion of Health Research) and the European Regional Development fund (ISCIII-FEDER). MOO is supported by grant U54HG007479 from the National Institutes of Health. TCR is a member of the Alzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre (University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK) and is supported by Alzheimer Scotland. RT-S was partly supported by grant number PROMETEOII/2015/021 from Generalitat Valenciana and the national grant PI17/00719 from ISCIII-FEDER. TW acknowledges academic support from University of Rajarata (Mihintale, Sri Lanka). ; Sí
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive and comparable estimates of health spending in each country are a key input for health policy and planning, and are necessary to support the achievement of national and international health goals. Previous studies have tracked past and projected future health spending until 2040 and shown that, with economic development, countries tend to spend more on health per capita, with a decreasing share of spending from development assistance and out-of-pocket sources. We aimed to characterise the past, present, and predicted future of global health spending, with an emphasis on equity in spending across countries. METHODS: We estimated domestic health spending for 195 countries and territories from 1995 to 2016, split into three categories-government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending-and estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2018. We estimated future scenarios of health spending using an ensemble of linear mixed-effects models with time series specifications to project domestic health spending from 2017 through 2050 and DAH from 2019 through 2050. Data were extracted from a broad set of sources tracking health spending and revenue, and were standardised and converted to inflation-adjusted 2018 US dollars. Incomplete or low-quality data were modelled and uncertainty was estimated, leading to a complete data series of total, government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending, and DAH. Estimates are reported in 2018 US dollars, 2018 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars, and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We used demographic decomposition methods to assess a set of factors associated with changes in government health spending between 1995 and 2016 and to examine evidence to support the theory of the health financing transition. We projected two alternative future scenarios based on higher government health spending to assess the potential ability of governments to generate more resources for health. FINDINGS: Between 1995 and 2016, health spending grew at a rate of 4·00% (95% uncertainty interval 3·89-4·12) annually, although it grew slower in per capita terms (2·72% [2·61-2·84]) and increased by less than $1 per capita over this period in 22 of 195 countries. The highest annual growth rates in per capita health spending were observed in upper-middle-income countries (5·55% [5·18-5·95]), mainly due to growth in government health spending, and in lower-middle-income countries (3·71% [3·10-4·34]), mainly from DAH. Health spending globally reached $8·0 trillion (7·8-8·1) in 2016 (comprising 8·6% [8·4-8·7] of the global economy and $10·3 trillion [10·1-10·6] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), with a per capita spending of US$5252 (5184-5319) in high-income countries, $491 (461-524) in upper-middle-income countries, $81 (74-89) in lower-middle-income countries, and $40 (38-43) in low-income countries. In 2016, 0·4% (0·3-0·4) of health spending globally was in low-income countries, despite these countries comprising 10·0% of the global population. In 2018, the largest proportion of DAH targeted HIV/AIDS ($9·5 billion, 24·3% of total DAH), although spending on other infectious diseases (excluding tuberculosis and malaria) grew fastest from 2010 to 2018 (6·27% per year). The leading sources of DAH were the USA and private philanthropy (excluding corporate donations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). For the first time, we included estimates of China's contribution to DAH ($644·7 million in 2018). Globally, health spending is projected to increase to $15·0 trillion (14·0-16·0) by 2050 (reaching 9·4% [7·6-11·3] of the global economy and $21·3 trillion [19·8-23·1] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), but at a lower growth rate of 1·84% (1·68-2·02) annually, and with continuing disparities in spending between countries. In 2050, we estimate that 0·6% (0·6-0·7) of health spending will occur in currently low-income countries, despite these countries comprising an estimated 15·7% of the global population by 2050. The ratio between per capita health spending in high-income and low-income countries was 130·2 (122·9-136·9) in 2016 and is projected to remain at similar levels in 2050 (125·9 [113·7-138·1]). The decomposition analysis identified governments' increased prioritisation of the health sector and economic development as the strongest factors associated with increases in government health spending globally. Future government health spending scenarios suggest that, with greater prioritisation of the health sector and increased government spending, health spending per capita could more than double, with greater impacts in countries that currently have the lowest levels of government health spending. INTERPRETATION: Financing for global health has increased steadily over the past two decades and is projected to continue increasing in the future, although at a slower pace of growth and with persistent disparities in per-capita health spending between countries. Out-of-pocket spending is projected to remain substantial outside of high-income countries. Many low-income countries are expected to remain dependent on development assistance, although with greater government spending, larger investments in health are feasible. In the absence of sustained new investments in health, increasing efficiency in health spending is essential to meet global health targets. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ; Sí
Background The scale-up of tobacco control, especially after the adoption of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, is a major public health success story. Nonetheless, smoking remains a leading risk for early death and disability worldwide, and therefore continues to require sustained political commitment. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) offers a robust platform through which global, regional, and national progress toward achieving smoking-related targets can be assessed. Methods We synthesised 2818 data sources with spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression and produced estimates of daily smoking prevalence by sex, age group, and year for 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2015. We analysed 38 risk-outcome pairs to generate estimates of smoking-attributable mortality and disease burden, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). We then performed a cohort analysis of smoking prevalence by birth-year cohort to better understand temporal age patterns in smoking. We also did a decomposition analysis, in which we parsed out changes in all-cause smoking-attributable DALYs due to changes in population growth, population ageing, smoking prevalence, and risk-deleted DALY rates. Finally, we explored results by level of development using the Socio-demographic Index (SDI). Findings Worldwide, the age-standardised prevalence of daily smoking was 25·0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 24·2–25·7) for men and 5·4% (5·1–5·7) for women, representing 28·4% (25·8–31·1) and 34·4% (29·4–38·6) reductions, respectively, since 1990. A greater percentage of countries and territories achieved significant annualised rates of decline in smoking prevalence from 1990 to 2005 than in between 2005 and 2015; however, only four countries had significant annualised increases in smoking prevalence between 2005 and 2015 (Congo [Brazzaville] and Azerbaijan for men and Kuwait and Timor-Leste for women). In 2015, 11·5% of global deaths (6·4 million [95% UI 5·7–7·0 million]) were attributable to smoking worldwide, of which 52·2% took place in four countries (China, India, the USA, and Russia). Smoking was ranked among the five leading risk factors by DALYs in 109 countries and territories in 2015, rising from 88 geographies in 1990. In terms of birth cohorts, male smoking prevalence followed similar age patterns across levels of SDI, whereas much more heterogeneity was found in age patterns for female smokers by level of development. While smoking prevalence and risk-deleted DALY rates mostly decreased by sex and SDI quintile, population growth, population ageing, or a combination of both, drove rises in overall smokingattributable DALYs in low-SDI to middle-SDI geographies between 2005 and 2015. Interpretation The pace of progress in reducing smoking prevalence has been heterogeneous across geographies, development status, and sex, and as highlighted by more recent trends, maintaining past rates of decline should not be taken for granted, especially in women and in low-SDI to middle-SDI countries. Beyond the effect of the tobacco industry and societal mores, a crucial challenge facing tobacco control initiatives is that demographic forces are poised to heighten smoking's global toll, unless progress in preventing initiation and promoting cessation can be substantially accelerated. Greater success in tobacco control is possible but requires effective, comprehensive, and adequately implemented and enforced policies, which might in turn require global and national levels of political commitment beyond what has been achieved during the past 25 years.
Background The scale-up of tobacco control, especially after the adoption of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, is a major public health success story. Nonetheless, smoking remains a leading risk for early death and disability worldwide, and therefore continues to require sustained political commitment. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) offers a robust platform through which global, regional, and national progress toward achieving smoking-related targets can be assessed. Methods We synthesised 2818 data sources with spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression and produced estimates of daily smoking prevalence by sex, age group, and year for 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2015. We analysed 38 risk-outcome pairs to generate estimates of smoking-attributable mortality and disease burden, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). We then performed a cohort analysis of smoking prevalence by birth-year cohort to better understand temporal age patterns in smoking. We also did a decomposition analysis, in which we parsed out changes in all-cause smoking-attributable DALYs due to changes in population growth, population ageing, smoking prevalence, and risk-deleted DALY rates. Finally, we explored results by level of development using the Socio-demographic Index (SDI). Findings Worldwide, the age-standardised prevalence of daily smoking was 25.0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 24.2-25.7) for men and 5.4% (5.1-5.7) for women, representing 28.4% (25.8-31.1) and 34.4% (29.4-38.6) reductions, respectively, since 1990. A greater percentage of countries and territories achieved significant annualised rates of decline in smoking prevalence from 1990 to 2005 than in between 2005 and 2015; however, only four countries had significant annualised increases in smoking prevalence between 2005 and 2015 (Congo [Brazzaville] and Azerbaijan for men and Kuwait and Timor-Leste for women). In 2015, 11.5% of global deaths (6.4 million [95% UI 5.7-7.0 million]) were attributable to smoking worldwide, of which 52.2% took place in four countries (China, India, the USA, and Russia). Smoking was ranked among the five leading risk factors by DALYs in 109 countries and territories in 2015, rising from 88 geographies in 1990. In terms of birth cohorts, male smoking prevalence followed similar age patterns across levels of SDI, whereas much more heterogeneity was found in age patterns for female smokers by level of development. While smoking prevalence and risk-deleted DALY rates mostly decreased by sex and SDI quintile, population growth, population ageing, or a combination of both, drove rises in overall smoking-attributable DALYs in low-SDI to middle-SDI geographies between 2005 and 2015. Interpretation The pace of progress in reducing smoking prevalence has been heterogeneous across geographies, development status, and sex, and as highlighted by more recent trends, maintaining past rates of decline should not be taken for granted, especially in women and in low-SDI to middle-SDI countries. Beyond the effect of the tobacco industry and societal mores, a crucial challenge facing tobacco control initiatives is that demographic forces are poised to heighten smoking's global toll, unless progress in preventing initiation and promoting cessation can be substantially accelerated. Greater success in tobacco control is possible but requires effective, comprehensive, and adequately implemented and enforced policies, which might in turn require global and national levels of political commitment beyond what has been achieved during the past 25 years.
Correction in: LANCET Volume: 390 Issue: 10103 Pages: 1644-1644 Published: OCT 7 2017 . ; Background The scale-up of tobacco control, especially after the adoption of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, is a major public health success story. Nonetheless, smoking remains a leading risk for early death and disability worldwide, and therefore continues to require sustained political commitment. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) offers a robust platform through which global, regional, and national progress toward achieving smoking-related targets can be assessed. Methods We synthesised 2818 data sources with spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression and produced estimates of daily smoking prevalence by sex, age group, and year for 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2015. We analysed 38 risk-outcome pairs to generate estimates of smoking-attributable mortality and disease burden, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). We then performed a cohort analysis of smoking prevalence by birth-year cohort to better understand temporal age patterns in smoking. We also did a decomposition analysis, in which we parsed out changes in all-cause smoking-attributable DALYs due to changes in population growth, population ageing, smoking prevalence, and risk-deleted DALY rates. Finally, we explored results by level of development using the Socio-demographic Index (SDI). Findings Worldwide, the age-standardised prevalence of daily smoking was 25.0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 24.2-25.7) for men and 5.4% (5.1-5.7) for women, representing 28.4% (25.8-31.1) and 34.4% (29.4-38.6) reductions, respectively, since 1990. A greater percentage of countries and territories achieved significant annualised rates of decline in smoking prevalence from 1990 to 2005 than in between 2005 and 2015; however, only four countries had significant annualised increases in smoking prevalence between 2005 and 2015 (Congo [Brazzaville] and Azerbaijan for men and Kuwait and Timor-Leste for women). In 2015, 11.5% of global deaths (6.4 million [95% UI 5.7-7.0 million]) were attributable to smoking worldwide, of which 52.2% took place in four countries (China, India, the USA, and Russia). Smoking was ranked among the five leading risk factors by DALYs in 109 countries and territories in 2015, rising from 88 geographies in 1990. In terms of birth cohorts, male smoking prevalence followed similar age patterns across levels of SDI, whereas much more heterogeneity was found in age patterns for female smokers by level of development. While smoking prevalence and risk-deleted DALY rates mostly decreased by sex and SDI quintile, population growth, population ageing, or a combination of both, drove rises in overall smoking-attributable DALYs in low-SDI to middle-SDI geographies between 2005 and 2015. Interpretation The pace of progress in reducing smoking prevalence has been heterogeneous across geographies, development status, and sex, and as highlighted by more recent trends, maintaining past rates of decline should not be taken for granted, especially in women and in low-SDI to middle-SDI countries. Beyond the effect of the tobacco industry and societal mores, a crucial challenge facing tobacco control initiatives is that demographic forces are poised to heighten smoking's global toll, unless progress in preventing initiation and promoting cessation can be substantially accelerated. Greater success in tobacco control is possible but requires effective, comprehensive, and adequately implemented and enforced policies, which might in turn require global and national levels of political commitment beyond what has been achieved during the past 25 years. ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies. ; Peer Reviewed
BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) are increasingly recognised as global health priorities in view of the preventability of most injuries and the complex and expensive medical care they necessitate. We aimed to measure the incidence, prevalence, and years of life lived with disability (YLDs) for TBI and SCI from all causes of injury in every country, to describe how these measures have changed between 1990 and 2016, and to estimate the proportion of TBI and SCI cases caused by different types of injury. METHODS: We used results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016 to measure the global, regional, and national burden of TBI and SCI by age and sex. We measured the incidence and prevalence of all causes of injury requiring medical care in inpatient and outpatient records, literature studies, and survey data. By use of clinical record data, we estimated the proportion of each cause of injury that required medical care that would result in TBI or SCI being considered as the nature of injury. We used literature studies to establish standardised mortality ratios and applied differential equations to convert incidence to prevalence of long-term disability. Finally, we applied GBD disability weights to calculate YLDs. We used a Bayesian meta-regression tool for epidemiological modelling, used cause-specific mortality rates for non-fatal estimation, and adjusted our results for disability experienced with comorbid conditions. We also analysed results on the basis of the Socio-demographic Index, a compound measure of income per capita, education, and fertility. FINDINGS: In 2016, there were 27·08 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 24·30-30·30 million) new cases of TBI and 0·93 million (0·78-1·16 million) new cases of SCI, with age-standardised incidence rates of 369 (331-412) per 100 000 population for TBI and 13 (11-16) per 100 000 for SCI. In 2016, the number of prevalent cases of TBI was 55·50 million (53·40-57·62 million) and of SCI was 27·04 million (24·98-30·15 million). From 1990 to 2016, the age-standardised prevalence of TBI increased by 8·4% (95% UI 7·7 to 9·2), whereas that of SCI did not change significantly (-0·2% [-2·1 to 2·7]). Age-standardised incidence rates increased by 3·6% (1·8 to 5·5) for TBI, but did not change significantly for SCI (-3·6% [-7·4 to 4·0]). TBI caused 8·1 million (95% UI 6·0-10·4 million) YLDs and SCI caused 9·5 million (6·7-12·4 million) YLDs in 2016, corresponding to age-standardised rates of 111 (82-141) per 100 000 for TBI and 130 (90-170) per 100 000 for SCI. Falls and road injuries were the leading causes of new cases of TBI and SCI in most regions. INTERPRETATION: TBI and SCI constitute a considerable portion of the global injury burden and are caused primarily by falls and road injuries. The increase in incidence of TBI over time might continue in view of increases in population density, population ageing, and increasing use of motor vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. The number of individuals living with SCI is expected to increase in view of population growth, which is concerning because of the specialised care that people with SCI can require. Our study was limited by data sparsity in some regions, and it will be important to invest greater resources in collection of data for TBI and SCI to improve the accuracy of future assessments. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ; We acknowledge the funding and support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. AK was supported by the Miguel Servet contract, which was financed by the CP13/00150 and PI15/00862 projects integrated into the National Research, Development, and Implementation,and funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III General Branch Evaluation and Promotion of Health Research and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF-FEDER). AMS is supported by the Egyptian Fulbright Mission Program. AF acknowledges the Federal University of Sergipe (Sergipe, Brazil). AA received financial assistance from the Indian Department of Science and Technology (New Delhi, India) through the INSPIRE faculty programme. AS is supported by Health Data Research UK. DJS is supported by the South African Medical Research Council. AB is supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada. SMSI received a senior research fellowship from the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University (Waurn Ponds, VIC, Australia), and a career transition grant from the High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia. FP and CF acknowledge support from the European Union (FEDER funds POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007728 and POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007265) and National Funds (FCT/MEC, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, and Ministério da Educação e Ciência) under the Partnership Agreements PT2020 UID/MULTI/04378/2013 and PT2020 UID/QUI/50006/2013. TB acknowledges financial support from the Institute of Medical Research and Medicinal Plant Studies, Yaoundé, Cameroon. AM of Imperial College London is grateful for support from the Northwest London National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research andCare and the Imperial NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. KD is funded by a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine (grant number 201900). PSA is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship. RT-S was supported in part by grant number PROMETEOII/2015/021 from Generalitat Valenciana and the national grant PI17/00719 from ISCIII-FEDER. The Serbian part of this contribution (by MJ) has been co-financed with grant OI175014 from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development; publication of results was not contingent upon the Ministry's approval. MMMSM acknowledges support from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development (contract 175087). MM's research was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (London, UK) and King's College London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health. TWB was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt professor award, which was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research ; Sí
Importance: Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data. Objective: To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning. Evidence Review: We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence. Findings: In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs). Conclusions and Relevance: The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer care.
Importance Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data. Objective To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning. Evidence Review We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence. Findings In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572 000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542 000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819 000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601 000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596 000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414 000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs). Conclusions and Relevance The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer
Background A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97.1 (95% UI 95.8-98.1) in Iceland, followed by 96.6 (94.9-97.9) in Norway and 96.1 (94.5-97.3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18.6 (13.1-24.4) in the Central African Republic, 19.0 (14.3-23.7) in Somalia, and 23.4 (20.2-26.8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91.5 (89.1-936) in Beijing to 48.0 (43.4-53.2) in Tibet (a 43.5-point difference), while India saw a 30.8-point disparity, from 64.8 (59.6-68.8) in Goa to 34.0 (30.3-38.1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4.8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20.9-point to 17.0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17.2-point to 20.4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle-SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view and subsequent provision of quality health care for all populations. ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Barbora de Courten is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (100864). Ai Koyanagi's work is supported by the Miguel Servet contract financed by the CP13/00150 and PI15/00862 projects, integrated into the National R + D + I and funded by the ISCIII —General Branch Evaluation and Promotion of Health Research—and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF-FEDER). Alberto Ortiz was supported by Spanish Government (Instituto de Salud Carlos III RETIC REDINREN RD16/0019 FEDER funds). Ashish Awasthi acknowledges funding support from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India through INSPIRE Faculty scheme Boris Bikbov has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 703226. Boris Bikbov acknowledges that work related to this paper has been done on the behalf of the GBD Genitourinary Disease Expert Group. Panniyammakal Jeemon acknowledges support from the clinical and public health intermediate fellowship from the Wellcome Trust and Department of Biotechnology, India Alliance (2015–20). Job F M van Boven was supported by the Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology of the University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Netherlands. Olanrewaju Oladimeji is an African Research Fellow hosted by Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), South Africa and he also has honorary affiliations with Walter Sisulu University (WSU), Eastern Cape, South Africa and School of Public Health, University of Namibia (UNAM), Namibia. He is indeed grateful for support from HSRC, WSU and UNAM. EUI is supported in part by the South African National Research Foundation (NRF UID: 86003). Ulrich Mueller acknowledges funding by the German National Cohort Study grant No 01ER1511/D, Gabrielle B Britton is supported by Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación and Sistema Nacional de Investigación de Panamá. Giuseppe Remuzzi acknowledges that the work related to this paper has been done on behalf of the GBD Genitourinary Disease Expert Group. Behzad Heibati would like to acknowledge Air pollution Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran. Syed Aljunid acknowledges the National University of Malaysia for providing the approval to participate in this GBD Project. Azeem Majeed and Imperial College London are grateful for support from the Northwest London National Insititute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research & Care. Tambe Ayuk acknowledges the Institute of Medical Research and Medicinal Plant Studies for office space provided. José das Neves was supported in his contribution to this work by a Fellowship from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal (SFRH/BPD/92934/2013). João Fernandes gratefully acknowledges funding from FCT–Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (grant number UID/Multi/50016/2013). Jan-Walter De Neve was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Kebede Deribe is funded by a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine (201900). Kazem Rahimi was supported by grants from the Oxford Martin School, the NIHR Oxford BRC and the RCUK Global Challenges Research Fund. Laith J Abu-Raddad acknowledges the support of Qatar National Research Fund (NPRP 9-040-3-008) who provided the main funding for generating the data provided to the GBD-IHME effort. Liesl Zuhlke is funded by the national research foundation of South Africa and the Medical Research Council of South Africa. Monica Cortinovis acknowledges that work related to this paper has been done on the behalf of the GBD Genitourinary Disease Expert Group. Chuanhua Yu acknowleges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81773552 and grant number 81273179) Norberto Perico acknowledges that work related to this paper has been done on behalf of the GBD Genitourinary Disease Expert Group. Charles Shey Wiysonge's work is supported by the South African Medical Research Council and the National Research Foundation of South Africa (grant numbers 106035 and 108571). John J McGrath is supported by grant APP1056929 from the John Cade Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Danish National Research Foundation (Niels Bohr Professorship). Quique Bassat is an ICREA (Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies) research professor at ISGlobal. Richard G White is funded by the UK MRC and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement that is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (MR/P002404/1), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (TB Modelling and Analysis Consortium: OPP1084276/OPP1135288, CORTIS: OPP1137034/OPP1151915, Vaccines: OPP1160830), and UNITAID (4214-LSHTM-Sept15; PO 8477-0-600). Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos was supported in part by grant number PROMETEOII/2015/021 from Generalitat Valenciana and the national grant PI17/00719 from ISCIII-FEDER. Mihajlo Jakovljevic acknowleges contribution from the Serbian Ministry of Education Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (grant OI 175 014). Shariful Islam is funded by a Senior Fellowship from Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University and received career transition grants from High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia. Sonia Saxena is funded by various grants from the NIHR. Stefanos Tyrovolas was supported by the Foundation for Education and European Culture, the Sara Borrell postdoctoral program (reference number CD15/00019 from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII–Spain) and the Fondos Europeo de Desarrollo Regional. Stefanos was awarded with a 6 months visiting fellowship funding at IHME from M-AES (reference no. MV16/00035 from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III). S Vittal Katikreddi was funded by a NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the MRC (MC_UU_12017/13 & MC_ UU_12017/15) and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13 & SPHSU15). Traolach S Brugha has received funding from NHS Digital UK to collect data used in this study. The work of Hamid Badali was financially supported by Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran. The work of Stefan Lorkowski is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (nutriCARD, Grant agreement number 01EA1411A). Mariam Molokhia's research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. We also thank the countless individuals who have contributed to GBD 2016 in various capacities. ; Peer reviewed
