Diabetes is one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide, and affects people regardless of country, age group, or sex. Using the most recent evidentiary and analytical framework from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD), we produced location-specific, age-specific, and sex-specific estimates of diabetes prevalence and burden from 1990 to 2021, the proportion of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in 2021, the proportion of the type 2 diabetes burden attributable to selected risk factors, and projections of diabetes prevalence through 2050. Estimates of diabetes prevalence and burden were computed in 204 countries and territories, across 25 age groups, for males and females separately and combined; these estimates comprised lost years of healthy life, measured in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; defined as the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]). We used the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) approach to estimate deaths due to diabetes, incorporating 25 666 location-years of data from vital registration and verbal autopsy reports in separate total (including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes) and type-specific models. Other forms of diabetes, including gestational and monogenic diabetes, were not explicitly modelled. Total and type 1 diabetes prevalence was estimated by use of a Bayesian meta-regression modelling tool, DisMod-MR 2.1, to analyse 1527 location-years of data from the scientific literature, survey microdata, and insurance claims; type 2 diabetes estimates were computed by subtracting type 1 diabetes from total estimates. Mortality and prevalence estimates, along with standard life expectancy and disability weights, were used to calculate YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs. When appropriate, we extrapolated estimates to a hypothetical population with a standardised age structure to allow comparison in populations with different age structures. We used the comparative risk assessment framework to estimate the risk-attributable type 2 diabetes burden for 16 risk factors falling under risk categories including environmental and occupational factors, tobacco use, high alcohol use, high body-mass index (BMI), dietary factors, and low physical activity. Using a regression framework, we forecast type 1 and type 2 diabetes prevalence through 2050 with Socio-demographic Index (SDI) and high BMI as predictors, respectively. In 2021, there were 529 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 500-564) people living with diabetes worldwide, and the global age-standardised total diabetes prevalence was 6·1% (5·8-6·5). At the super-region level, the highest age-standardised rates were observed in north Africa and the Middle East (9·3% [8·7-9·9]) and, at the regional level, in Oceania (12·3% [11·5-13·0]). Nationally, Qatar had the world's highest age-specific prevalence of diabetes, at 76·1% (73·1-79·5) in individuals aged 75-79 years. Total diabetes prevalence-especially among older adults-primarily reflects type 2 diabetes, which in 2021 accounted for 96·0% (95·1-96·8) of diabetes cases and 95·4% (94·9-95·9) of diabetes DALYs worldwide. In 2021, 52·2% (25·5-71·8) of global type 2 diabetes DALYs were attributable to high BMI. The contribution of high BMI to type 2 diabetes DALYs rose by 24·3% (18·5-30·4) worldwide between 1990 and 2021. By 2050, more than 1·31 billion (1·22-1·39) people are projected to have diabetes, with expected age-standardised total diabetes prevalence rates greater than 10% in two super-regions: 16·8% (16·1-17·6) in north Africa and the Middle East and 11·3% (10·8-11·9) in Latin America and Caribbean. By 2050, 89 (43·6%) of 204 countries and territories will have an age-standardised rate greater than 10%. Diabetes remains a substantial public health issue. Type 2 diabetes, which makes up the bulk of diabetes cases, is largely preventable and, in some cases, potentially reversible if identified and managed early in the disease course. However, all evidence indicates that diabetes prevalence is increasing worldwide, primarily due to a rise in obesity caused by multiple factors. Preventing and controlling type 2 diabetes remains an ongoing challenge. It is essential to better understand disparities in risk factor profiles and diabetes burden across populations, to inform strategies to successfully control diabetes risk factors within the context of multiple and complex drivers. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis in adults, characterised by chronic pain and loss of mobility. Osteoarthritis most frequently occurs after age 40 years and prevalence increases steeply with age. WHO has designated 2021–30 the decade of healthy ageing, which highlights the need to address diseases such as osteoarthritis, which strongly affect functional ability and quality of life. Osteoarthritis can coexist with, and negatively effect, other chronic conditions. Here we estimate the burden of hand, hip, knee, and other sites of osteoarthritis across geographies, age, sex, and time, with forecasts of prevalence to 2050. In this systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study, osteoarthritis prevalence in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 was estimated using data from population-based surveys from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis, and US insurance claims for all of the osteoarthritis sites, including the other types of osteoarthritis category. The reference case definition was symptomatic, radiographically confirmed osteoarthritis. Studies using alternative definitions from the reference case definition (for example self-reported osteoarthritis) were adjusted to reference using regression models. Osteoarthritis severity distribution was obtained from a pooled meta-analysis of sources using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. Final prevalence estimates were multiplied by disability weights to calculate years lived with disability (YLDs). Prevalence was forecast to 2050 using a mixed-effects model. Globally, 595 million (95% uncertainty interval 535–656) people had osteoarthritis in 2020, equal to 7·6% (95% UI 6·8–8·4) of the global population, and an increase of 132·2% (130·3–134·1) in total cases since 1990. Compared with 2020, cases of osteoarthritis are projected to increase 74·9% (59·4–89·9) for knee, 48·6% (35·9–67·1) for hand, 78·6% (57·7–105·3) for hip, and 95·1% (68·1–135·0) for other types of osteoarthritis by 2050. The global age-standardised rate of YLDs for total osteoarthritis was 255·0 YLDs (119·7–557·2) per 100 000 in 2020, a 9·5% (8·6–10·1) increase from 1990 (233·0 YLDs per 100 000, 109·3–510·8). For adults aged 70 years and older, osteoarthritis was the seventh ranked cause of YLDs. Age-standardised prevalence in 2020 was more than 5·5% in all world regions, ranging from 5677·4 (5029·8–6318·1) per 100 000 in southeast Asia to 8632·7 (7852·0–9469·1) per 100 000 in high-income Asia Pacific. Knee was the most common site for osteoarthritis. High BMI contributed to 20·4% (95% UI –1·7 to 36·6) of osteoarthritis. Potentially modifiable risk factors for osteoarthritis such as recreational injury prevention and occupational hazards have not yet been explored in GBD modelling. Age-standardised YLDs attributable to osteoarthritis are continuing to rise and will lead to substantial increases in case numbers because of population growth and ageing, and because there is no effective cure for osteoarthritis. The demand on health systems for care of patients with osteoarthritis, including joint replacements, which are highly effective for late stage osteoarthritis in hips and knees, will rise in all regions, but might be out of reach and lead to further health inequity for individuals and countries unable to afford them. Much more can and should be done to prevent people getting to that late stage. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health.

Background.: Despite the extensive literature assessing associations between religiosity/spirituality and health, few studies have investigated the clinical applicability of this evidence. The purpose of this paper was to assess the impact of religious/spiritual interventions (RSI) through randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Method.: A systematic review was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Collaboration, Embase and SciELO. Through the use of a Boolean expression, articles were included if they: (i) investigated mental health outcomes; (ii) had a design consistent with RCTs. We excluded protocols involving intercessory prayer or distance healing. The study was conducted in two phases by reading: (1) title and abstracts; (2) full papers and assessing their methodological quality. Then, a meta-analysis was carried out.Results.: Through this method, 4751 papers were obtained, of which 23 remained included. The meta-analysis showed significant effects of RSI on anxiety general symptoms (p< 0.001) and in subgroups: meditation (p< 0.001); psychotherapy (p= 0.02); 1 month of follow-up (p< 0.001); and comparison groups with interventions (p< 0.001). Two significant differences were found in depressive symptoms: between 1 and 6 months and comparison groups with interventions (p= 0.05). In general, studies have shown that RSI decreased stress, alcoholism and depression.Conclusions.: RCTs on RSI showed additional benefits including reduction of clinical symptoms (mainly anxiety). The diversity of protocols and outcomes associated with a lack of standardization of interventions point to the need for further studies evaluating the use of religiosity/spirituality as a complementary treatment in health care.

Research in the field of “Spirituality and Health” has been growing, with spirituality/religiousness (S/R) being consistently related to both physical and mental health. The objective of this article is to provide an updated review of the current scientific evidence on the relationship between S/R and mental health, highlighting the most important studies. As a secondary objective, the mechanisms that explain this relationship and the interventions that utilize this information in treating mental disorders will be discussed. The findings reveal a large body of evidence across numerous psychiatric disorders. Although solid evidence is now available for depression, suicidality, and substance use, other diagnosis, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis, and anxiety, have also shown promising results. The effects of S/R on mental health are likely bidirectional, and the manner in which religious beliefs are used to cope with distress (i.e. negative and positive), may affect mental health outcomes. Despite these findings, the mechanisms that explain these associations and the role of S/R interventions need further study. Concerning clinical practice, mental health providers should ask patients about S/R that are important in their lives to provide holistic and patient-centered care.

Health-care needs change throughout the life course. It is thus crucial to assess whether health systems provide access to quality health care for all ages. Drawing from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019), we measured the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index overall and for select age groups in 204 locations from 1990 to 2019. We distinguished the overall HAQ Index (ages 0–74 years) from scores for select age groups: the young (ages 0–14 years), working (ages 15–64 years), and post-working (ages 65–74 years) groups. For GBD 2019, HAQ Index construction methods were updated to use the arithmetic mean of scaled mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs) and risk-standardised death rates (RSDRs) for 32 causes of death that should not occur in the presence of timely, quality health care. Across locations and years, MIRs and RSDRs were scaled from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) separately, putting the HAQ Index on a different relative scale for each age group. We estimated absolute convergence for each group on the basis of whether the HAQ Index grew faster in absolute terms between 1990 and 2019 in countries with lower 1990 HAQ Index scores than countries with higher 1990 HAQ Index scores and by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. SDI is a summary metric of overall development. Between 1990 and 2019, the HAQ Index increased overall (by 19·6 points, 95% uncertainty interval 17·9–21·3), as well as among the young (22·5, 19·9–24·7), working (17·2, 15·2–19·1), and post-working (15·1, 13·2–17·0) age groups. Large differences in HAQ Index scores were present across SDI levels in 2019, with the overall index ranging from 30·7 (28·6–33·0) on average in low-SDI countries to 83·4 (82·4–84·3) on average in high-SDI countries. Similarly large ranges between low-SDI and high-SDI countries, respectively, were estimated in the HAQ Index for the young (40·4–89·0), working (33·8–82·8), and post-working (30·4–79·1) groups. Absolute convergence in HAQ Index was estimated in the young group only. In contrast, divergence was estimated among the working and post-working groups, driven by slow progress in low-SDI countries. Although major gaps remain across levels of social and economic development, convergence in the young group is an encouraging sign of reduced disparities in health-care access and quality. However, divergence in the working and post-working groups indicates that health-care access and quality is lagging at lower levels of social and economic development. To meet the needs of ageing populations, health systems need to improve health-care access and quality for working-age adults and older populations while continuing to realise gains among the young. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Summary Objective: To compare the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress in medical students from all semesters of a Brazilian medical school and assess their respective associated factors. Method: A cross-sectional study of students from the twelve semesters of a Brazilian medical school was carried out. Students filled out a questionnaire including sociodemographics, religiosity (DUREL - Duke Religion Index), and mental health (DASS-21 - Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale). The students were compared for mental health variables (Chi-squared/ANOVA). Linear regression models were employed to assess factors associated with DASS-21 scores. Results: 761 (75.4%) students answered the questionnaire; 34.6% reported depressive symptomatology, 37.2% showed anxiety symptoms, and 47.1% stress symptoms. Significant differences were found for: anxiety - ANOVA: [F = 2.536, p=0.004] between first and tenth (p=0.048) and first and eleventh (p=0.025) semesters; depression - ANOVA: [F = 2.410, p=0.006] between first and second semesters (p=0.045); and stress - ANOVA: [F = 2.968, p=0.001] between seventh and twelfth (p=0.044), tenth and twelfth (p=0.011), and eleventh and twelfth (p=0.001) semesters. The following factors were associated with (a) stress: female gender, anxiety, and depression; (b) depression: female gender, intrinsic religiosity, anxiety, and stress; and (c) anxiety: course semester, depression, and stress. Conclusion: Our findings revealed high levels of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms in medical students, with marked differences among course semesters. Gender and religiosity appeared to influence the mental health of the medical students.