Background Disparities in health status between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the total Australian population have been documented in a fragmentary manner using disparate health outcome measures. Methods We applied the burden of disease approach to national population health datasets and Indigenous-specific epidemiological studies. The main outcome measure is the Indigenous health gap, i.e. the difference between current rates of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) by age, sex and cause for Indigenous Australians and DALY rates if the same level of mortality and disability as in the total Australian population had applied. Results The Indigenous health gap accounted for 59% of the total burden of disease for Indigenous Australians in 2003 indicating a very large potential for health gain. Non-communicable diseases explained 70% of the health gap. Tobacco (17%), high body mass (16%), physical inactivity (12%), high blood cholesterol (7%) and alcohol (4%) were the main risk factors contributing to the health gap. While the 26% of Indigenous Australians residing in remote areas experienced a disproportionate amount of the health gap (40%) compared with non-remote areas, the majority of the health gap affects residents of non-remote areas. Discussion Comprehensive information on the burden of disease for Indigenous Australians is essential for informed health priority setting. This assessment has identified large health gaps which translate into opportunities for large health gains. It provides the empirical base to determine a more equitable and efficient funding of Indigenous health in Australia. The methods are replicable and would benefit priority setting in other countries with great disparities in health experienced by Indigenous peoples or other disadvantaged population groups.
This is an overview of the first burden of disease and injury studies carried out in Australia. Methods developed for the World Bank and World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease Study were...
Objective: To describe the magnitude and distribution of health problems in Australia, in order to identify key opportunities for health gain. Design: Descriptive epidemiological models for a compreh...
Background: Burden of disease studies have been implemented in many countries using the Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) to assess major health problems. Important objectives of the study were to quantify intra-country differentials in health outcomes and to place the United States situation in the international context. Methods: We applied methods developed for the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) to data specific to the United States to compute Disability-Adjusted Life Years. Estimates are provided by age and gender for the general population of the United States and for each of the four official race groups: White; Black; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and Asian or Pacific Islander. Several adjustments of GBD methods were made: the inclusion of race; a revised list of causes; and a revised algorithm to allocate cardiovascular disease garbage codes to ischaemic heart disease. We compared the results of this analysis to international estimates published by the World Health Organization for developed and developing regions of the world. Results: In the mid-1990s the leading sources of premature death and disability in the United States, as measured by DALYs, were: cardiovascular conditions, breast and lung cancers, depression, osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, and alcohol use and abuse. In addition, motor vehicle-related injuries and the HIV epidemic exacted a substantial toll on the health status of the US population, particularly among racial minorities. The major sources of death and disability in these latter populations were more similar to patterns of burden in developing rather than developed countries. Conclusion: Estimating DALYs specifically for the United States provides a comprehensive assessment of health problems for this country compared to what is available using mortality data alone.
Background: The social gradient in chronic disease (CD) is well-documented, and the ability to effectively self-manage is crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality from CD. This systematic review aimed to assess the moderating effect of socioeconomic status on self-management support (SMS) interventions in relation to participation, retention and post-intervention outcomes. Methods: Six databases were searched for studies of any design published until December 2018. Eligible studies reported on outcomes from SMS interventions for adults with chronic disease, where socioeconomic status was recorded and a between-groups comparison on SES was made. Possible outcomes were participation rates, retention rates and clinical or behavioural post-intervention results. Results: Nineteen studies were retrieved, including five studies on participation, five on attrition and nine studies reporting on outcomes following SMS intervention. All participation studies reported reduced engagement in low SES cohorts. Studies assessing retention and post-intervention outcomes had variable results, related to the diversity of interventions. A reduction in health disparity was seen in longer interventions that were individually tailored. Most studies did not provide a theoretical justification for the intervention being investigated, although four studies referred to Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy. Conclusions: The limited research suggests that socioeconomic status does moderate the efficacy of SMS interventions, such that without careful tailoring and direct targeting of barriers to self-management, SMS may exacerbate the social gradient in chronic disease outcomes. Screening for patient disadvantage or workload, rather than simply recording SES, may increase the chances of tailored interventions being directed to those most likely to benefit from them. Future interventions for low SES populations should consider focussing more on treatment burden and patient capacity. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration CRD42019124760. Registration date 17/4/19.
29 April 2020 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews