Search results

Background: Despite increasing of the Belgian health expenditures, several indicators related to population health showed poor results. The objectives of this study were to perform an in-depth analysis of the secular trend of Belgian health status using the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016 study results for Belgium, and to compare these results with other European countries. Methods: We collected results of the Global Burden of Disease 2016 study through the GBD results and visualization tools. We benchmarked Belgian GBD results with the other initial members of the European Union (EU15). Results: Belgium performed significantly better in 2016 than in 1990 in terms of age-standardized (AS) Year of Life Lost (YLL) rates but not significantly different in terms of AS Year Lived with Disability (YLD) and Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) rates. The contribution of AS YLDs to total of AS DALYs increased from 1990 (42%) to 2016 (54%). Although AS YLD and DALY rates did not seem to differ between Belgium and the EU15 from 1990 to 2016, the ranking of Belgium among the EU15 in terms of AS DALY and YLL rates was worse in 2016 than in 1990. Belgium had significantly higher AS YLL rates for lower respiratory infections (B: 264 AS YLLs [95% uncertainty interval [UI] 231–301] per 100,000; EU15: 188 AS YLLs [95%UI 168–212] per 100,000), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (B: 368 AS YLLs [95%UI 331–407] per 100,000; EU15: 285 AS YLLs [95%UI 258–316] per 100,000) and tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer (B: 785 AS YLLs [95%UI 699–879] per 100,000; EU15: 613 AS YLLs [95%UI 556–674] per 100,000). Conclusion: Belgium's ranking among the EU15 in terms of AS YLL and DALY rates decreased from 1990 to 2016. Significant health gains appear possible by acting on risk factors directly linked to a significant part of the Belgian burden of diseases, i.e., alcohol and tobacco consumption, and high body mass index. National burden of disease estimates can help defining Belgian health targets and are necessary as external validity of GBD results is not always guaranteed.

Background: Despite increasing of the Belgian health expenditures, several indicators related to population health showed poor results. The objectives of this study were to perform an in-depth analysis of the secular trend of Belgian health status using the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016 study results for Belgium, and to compare these results with other European countries. Methods: We collected results of the Global Burden of Disease 2016 study through the GBD results and visualization tools. We benchmarked Belgian GBD results with the other initial members of the European Union (EU15). Results: Belgium performed significantly better in 2016 than in 1990 in terms of age-standardized (AS) Year of Life Lost (YLL) rates but not significantly different in terms of AS Year Lived with Disability (YLD) and Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) rates. The contribution of AS YLDs to total of AS DALYs increased from 1990 (42%) to 2016 (54%). Although AS YLD and DALY rates did not seem to differ between Belgium and the EU15 from 1990 to 2016, the ranking of Belgium among the EU15 in terms of AS DALY and YLL rates was worse in 2016 than in 1990. Belgium had significantly higher AS YLL rates for lower respiratory infections (B: 264 AS YLLs [95% uncertainty interval [UI] 231–301] per 100,000; EU15: 188 AS YLLs [95%UI 168–212] per 100,000), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (B: 368 AS YLLs [95%UI 331–407] per 100,000; EU15: 285 AS YLLs [95%UI 258–316] per 100,000) and tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer (B: 785 AS YLLs [95%UI 699–879] per 100,000; EU15: 613 AS YLLs [95%UI 556–674] per 100,000). Conclusion: Belgium's ranking among the EU15 in terms of AS YLL and DALY rates decreased from 1990 to 2016. Significant health gains appear possible by acting on risk factors directly linked to a significant part of the Belgian burden of diseases, i.e., alcohol and tobacco consumption, and high body mass index. National burden of disease estimates can help defining Belgian health targets and are necessary as external validity of GBD results is not always guaranteed.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Smoking behaviour is a major public health problem worldwide. Several sources have confirmed the implication of genomic factors in smoking behaviour. These factors interact both with environmental factors and interventions to develop a certain behaviour. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> Describing the environmental and genomic factors as well as the interventions influencing smoking cessation (SC) and developing a working model incorporating the different factors influencing SC were our main objectives. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Two systematic reviews were conducted using articles in English from the Cochrane library, PubMed and HuGENet from January 2000 to September 2012: (1) a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and (2) a systematic review of original research for genomic factors. The proposed working model was developed by making use of previous models of SC and applying an iterative process of discussion and re-examination by the authors. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We confirmed the importance of the 4 main factors influencing SC: (1) environmental factors, (2) genomic factors, (3) gene-environment interactions, and (4) evidence-based interventions. The model demonstrates the complex network of factors influencing SC. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The working model of SC proposed a global view of factors influencing SC, warranting future research in this area. Future testing of the model will consolidate the understanding of the different factors affecting SC and will help to improve interventions in this field.

Background: The Global Activity Limitation Indicator (GALI), the measure underlying the European indicator Healthy Life Years (HLY), is widely used to compare population health across countries. However, the comparability of the item has been questioned. This study aims to further validate the GALI in the adult European population. Methods: Data from the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS), covering 14 European countries and 152,787 individuals, were used to explore how the GALI was associated with other measures of disability and whether the GALI was consistent or reflected different disability situations in different countries. Results: When considering each country separately or all combined, we found that the GALI was significantly associated with measures of activities of daily living, instrumental activity of daily living, and functional limitations (P < 0.001 in all cases). Associations were largest for activity of daily living and lowest though still high for functional limitations. For each measure, the magnitude of the association was similar across most countries. Overall, however, the GALI differed significantly between countries in terms of how it reflected each of the three disability measures (P < 0.001 in all cases). We suspect cross-country differences in the results may be due to variations in: the implementation of the EHIS, the perception of functioning and limitations, and the understanding of the GALI question. Conclusion: The study both confirms the relevance of this indicator to measure general activity limitations in the European population and the need for caution when comparing the level of the GALI from one country to another.

The European Union (EU) initiative on the Digital Transformation of Health and Care (Digicare) aims to provide the conditions necessary for building a secure, flexible, and decentralized digital health infrastructure. Creating a European Health Research and Innovation Cloud (HRIC) within this environment should enable data sharing and analysis for health research across the EU, in compliance with data protection legislation while preserving the full trust of the participants. Such a HRIC should learn from and build on existing data infrastructures, integrate best practices, and focus on the concrete needs of the community in terms of technologies, governance, management, regulation, and ethics requirements. Here, we describe the vision and expected benefits of digital data sharing in health research activities and present a roadmap that fosters the opportunities while answering the challenges of implementing a HRIC. For this, we put forward five specific recommendations and action points to ensure that a European HRIC: i) is built on established standards and guidelines, providing cloud technologies through an open and decentralized infrastructure; ii) is developed and certified to the highest standards of interoperability and data security that can be trusted by all stakeholders; iii) is supported by a robust ethical and legal framework that is compliant with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); iv) establishes a proper environment for the training of new generations of data and medical scientists; and v) stimulates research and innovation in transnational collaborations through public and private initiatives and partnerships funded by the EU through Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe.

The European Union (EU) initiative on the Digital Transformation of Health and Care (Digicare) aims to provide the conditions necessary for building a secure, flexible, and decentralized digital health infrastructure. Creating a European Health Research and Innovation Cloud (HRIC) within this environment should enable data sharing and analysis for health research across the EU, in compliance with data protection legislation while preserving the full trust of the participants. Such a HRIC should learn from and build on existing data infrastructures, integrate best practices, and focus on the concrete needs of the community in terms of technologies, governance, management, regulation, and ethics requirements. Here, we describe the vision and expected benefits of digital data sharing in health research activities and present a roadmap that fosters the opportunities while answering the challenges of implementing a HRIC. For this, we put forward five specific recommendations and action points to ensure that a European HRIC: i) is built on established standards and guidelines, providing cloud technologies through an open and decentralized infrastructure; ii) is developed and certified to the highest standards of interoperability and data security that can be trusted by all stakeholders; iii) is supported by a robust ethical and legal framework that is compliant with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); iv) establishes a proper environment for the training of new generations of data and medical scientists; and v) stimulates research and innovation in transnational collaborations through public and private initiatives and partnerships funded by the EU through Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe.