In 2015, the second cycle of the CONCORD programme established global surveillance of cancer survival as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems and to inform global policy on cancer control. CONCORD-3 updates the worldwide surveillance of cancer survival to 2014. CONCORD-3 includes individual records for 37·5 million patients diagnosed with cancer during the 15-year period 2000-14. Data were provided by 322 population-based cancer registries in 71 countries and territories, 47 of which provided data with 100% population coverage. The study includes 18 cancers or groups of cancers: oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, prostate, and melanoma of the skin in adults, and brain tumours, leukaemias, and lymphomas in both adults and children. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were rectified by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. For many cancers, Denmark is closing the survival gap with the other Nordic countries. Survival trends are generally increasing, even for some of the more lethal cancers: in some countries, survival has increased by up to 5% for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and lung. For women diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for breast cancer is now 89·5% in Australia and 90·2% in the USA, but international differences remain very wide, with levels as low as 66·1% in India. For gastrointestinal cancers, the highest levels of 5-year survival are seen in southeast Asia: in South Korea for cancers of the stomach (68·9%), colon (71·8%), and rectum (71·1%); in Japan for oesophageal cancer (36·0%); and in Taiwan for liver cancer (27·9%). By contrast, in the same world region, survival is generally lower than elsewhere for melanoma of the skin (59·9% in South Korea, 52·1% in Taiwan, and 49·6% in China), and for both lymphoid malignancies (52·5%, 50·5%, and 38·3%) and myeloid malignancies (45·9%, 33·4%, and 24·8%). For children diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia ranged from 49·8% in Ecuador to 95·2% in Finland. 5-year survival from brain tumours in children is higher than for adults but the global range is very wide (from 28·9% in Brazil to nearly 80% in Sweden and Denmark). The CONCORD programme enables timely comparisons of the overall effectiveness of health systems in providing care for 18 cancers that collectively represent 75% of all cancers diagnosed worldwide every year. It contributes to the evidence base for global policy on cancer control. Since 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has used findings from the CONCORD programme as the official benchmark of cancer survival, among their indicators of the quality of health care in 48 countries worldwide. Governments must recognise population-based cancer registries as key policy tools that can be used to evaluate both the impact of cancer prevention strategies and the effectiveness of health systems for all patients diagnosed with cancer. American Cancer Society; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Swiss Re; Swiss Cancer Research foundation; Swiss Cancer League; Institut National du Cancer; La Ligue Contre le Cancer; Rossy Family Foundation; US National Cancer Institute; and the Susan G Komen Foundation.

Background: An infodemic is an overabundance of information—some accurate and some not—that occurs during an epidemic. In a similar manner to an epidemic, it spreads between humans via digital and physical information systems. It makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it. Objective: A World Health Organization (WHO) technical consultation on responding to the infodemic related to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic was held, entirely online, to crowdsource suggested actions for a framework for infodemic management. Methods: A group of policy makers, public health professionals, researchers, students, and other concerned stakeholders was joined by representatives of the media, social media platforms, various private sector organizations, and civil society to suggest and discuss actions for all parts of society, and multiple related professional and scientific disciplines, methods, and technologies. A total of 594 ideas for actions were crowdsourced online during the discussions and consolidated into suggestions for an infodemic management framework. Results: The analysis team distilled the suggestions into a set of 50 proposed actions for a framework for managing infodemics in health emergencies. The consultation revealed six policy implications to consider. First, interventions and messages must be based on science and evidence, and must reach citizens and enable them to make informed decisions on how to protect themselves and their communities in a health emergency. Second, knowledge should be translated into actionable behavior-change messages, presented in ways that are understood by and accessible to all individuals in all parts of all societies. Third, governments should reach out to key communities to ensure their concerns and information needs are understood, tailoring advice and messages to address the audiences they represent. Fourth, to strengthen the analysis and amplification of information impact, strategic partnerships should be formed across all sectors, including but not limited to the social media and technology sectors, academia, and civil society. Fifth, health authorities should ensure that these actions are informed by reliable information that helps them understand the circulating narratives and changes in the flow of information, questions, and misinformation in communities. Sixth, following experiences to date in responding to the COVID-19 infodemic and the lessons from other disease outbreaks, infodemic management approaches should be further developed to support preparedness and response, and to inform risk mitigation, and be enhanced through data science and sociobehavioral and other research. Conclusions: The first version of this framework proposes five action areas in which WHO Member States and actors within society can apply, according to their mandate, an infodemic management approach adapted to national contexts and practices. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and the related infodemic require swift, regular, systematic, and coordinated action from multiple sectors of society and government. It remains crucial that we promote trusted information and fight misinformation, thereby helping save lives.

Variations in intervention rates, without subsequent reductions in adverse outcomes, can indicate overuse. We studied variations in and associations between commonly used childbirth interventions and adverse outcomes, adjusted for population characteristics. In this multinational cross-sectional study, existing data on 4,729,307 singleton births at ≥37 weeks in 2013 from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany (Hesse), Malta, the United States, and Chile were used to describe variations in childbirth interventions and outcomes. Numbers of births ranged from 3,987 for Iceland to 3,500,397 for the USA. Crude data were analysed in the Netherlands, or analysed data were shared with the principal investigator. Strict variable definitions were used and information on data quality was collected. Intervention rates were described for each country and stratified by parity. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed, adjusted for population characteristics, and associations between rates of interventions, population characteristics, and outcomes were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients. Considerable intercountry variations were found for all interventions, despite adjustments for population characteristics. Adjustments for ethnicity and body mass index changed odds ratios for augmentation of labour and episiotomy. Largest variations were found for augmentation of labour, pain relief, episiotomy, instrumental birth, and cesarean section (CS). Percentages of births at ≥42 weeks varied from 0.1% to 6.7%. Rates among nulliparous versus multiparous women varied from 56% to 80% versus 51% to 82% for spontaneous onset of labour; 14% to 36% versus 8% to 28% for induction of labour; 3% to 13% versus 7% to 26% for prelabour CS; 16% to 48% versus 12% to 50% for overall CS; 22% to 71% versus 7% to 38% for augmentation of labour; 50% to 93% versus 25% to 86% for any intrapartum pain relief, 19% to 83% versus 10% to 64% for epidural anaesthesia; 6% to 68% versus 2% to 30% for episiotomy in vaginal births; 3% to 30% versus 1% to 7% for instrumental vaginal births; and 42% to 70% versus 50% to 84% for spontaneous vaginal births. Countries with higher rates of births at ≥42 weeks had higher rates of births with a spontaneous onset (rho = 0.82 for nulliparous/rho = 0.83 for multiparous women) and instrumental (rho = 0.67) and spontaneous (rho = 0.66) vaginal births among multiparous women and lower rates of induction of labour (rho = −0.71/−0.66), prelabour CS (rho = −0.61/−0.65), overall CS (rho = −0.61/−0.67), and episiotomy (multiparous: rho = −0.67). Variation in CS rates was mainly due to prelabour CS (rho = 0.96). Countries with higher rates of births with a spontaneous onset had lower rates of emergency CS (nulliparous: rho = −0.62) and higher rates of spontaneous vaginal births (multiparous: rho = 0.70). Prelabour and emergency CS were positively correlated (nulliparous: rho = 0.74). Higher rates of obstetric anal sphincter injury following vaginal birth were found in countries with higher rates of spontaneous birth (nulliparous: rho = 0.65). In countries with higher rates of epidural anaesthesia (nulliparous) and spontaneous births (multiparous), higher rates of Apgar score < 7 were found (rhos = 0.64). No statistically significant variation was found for perinatal mortality. Main limitations were varying quality of data and missing information. Considerable intercountry variations were found for all interventions, even after adjusting for population characteristics, indicating overuse of interventions in some countries. Multivariable analyses are essential when comparing intercountry rates. Implementation of evidence-based guidelines is crucial in optimising intervention use and improving quality of maternity care worldwide.