TY - JOUR
T1 - Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a scoping literature review
AU - Gorasso, Vanessa
AU - Morgado, Joana Nazaré
AU - Charalampous, Periklis
AU - Pires, Sara M.
AU - Haagsma, Juanita A.
AU - Santos, João Vasco
AU - Idavain, Jane
AU - Ngwa, Che Henry
AU - Noguer, Isabel
AU - Padron-Monedero, Alicia
AU - Sarmiento, Rodrigo
AU - Pinheiro, Vera
AU - der Lippe, Elena Von
AU - Jakobsen, Lea Sletting
AU - Devleesschauwer, Brecht
AU - Plass, Dietrich
AU - Aasvang, Gunn Marit
AU - Ádám, Balázs
AU - Alkerwi, Ala’a
AU - Arabloo, Jalal
AU - Baltazar, Ana Lúcia
AU - Uysal, Hilal Bektas
AU - Bikbov, Boris
AU - Bolling, Anette Kocbach
AU - Borrell-Pages, Maria
AU - Carreras, Giulia
AU - Castelpietra, Giulio
AU - Chen-Xu, José
AU - Lagarija, Šeila Cilović
AU - Corso, Barbara
AU - Cuschieri, Sarah
AU - Pauw, Robby De
AU - Dhaouadi, Sonia
AU - Dokova, Klara
AU - Dopelt, Keren
AU - Economou, Mary
AU - Emeto, Theophilus I.
AU - Fantke, Peter
AU - Fischer, Florian
AU - Freitas, Alberto
AU - Galluzzo, Lucia
AU - García-González, Juan Manuel
AU - Gazzelloni, Federica
AU - Gissler, Mika
AU - Gkitakou, Artemis
AU - Gubes, Sezgin
AU - Canu, Irina Guseva
AU - Hincapié, Cesar A.
AU - Hynds, Paul
AU - Ilic, Irena
AU - Ilic, Milena
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Objectives: Within the framework of the burden of disease (BoD) approach, disease and injury burden estimates attributable to risk factors are a useful guide for policy formulation and priority setting in disease prevention. Considering the important differences in methods, and their impact on burden estimates, we conducted a scoping literature review to: (1) map the BoD assessments including risk factors performed across Europe; and (2) identify the methodological choices in comparative risk assessment (CRA) and risk assessment methods. Methods: We searched multiple literature databases, including grey literature websites and targeted public health agencies websites. Results: A total of 113 studies were included in the synthesis and further divided into independent BoD assessments (54 studies) and studies linked to the Global Burden of Disease (59 papers). Our results showed that the methods used to perform CRA varied substantially across independent European BoD studies. While there were some methodological choices that were more common than others, we did not observe patterns in terms of country, year or risk factor. Each methodological choice can affect the comparability of estimates between and within countries and/or risk factors, since they might significantly influence the quantification of the attributable burden. From our analysis we observed that the use of CRA was less common for some types of risk factors and outcomes. These included environmental and occupational risk factors, which are more likely to use bottom-up approaches for health outcomes where disease envelopes may not be available. Conclusions: Our review also highlighted misreporting, the lack of uncertainty analysis and the under-investigation of causal relationships in BoD studies. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting BoD studies will help understand differences, avoid misinterpretations thus improving comparability among estimates. Registration: The study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020177477 (available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).
AB - Objectives: Within the framework of the burden of disease (BoD) approach, disease and injury burden estimates attributable to risk factors are a useful guide for policy formulation and priority setting in disease prevention. Considering the important differences in methods, and their impact on burden estimates, we conducted a scoping literature review to: (1) map the BoD assessments including risk factors performed across Europe; and (2) identify the methodological choices in comparative risk assessment (CRA) and risk assessment methods. Methods: We searched multiple literature databases, including grey literature websites and targeted public health agencies websites. Results: A total of 113 studies were included in the synthesis and further divided into independent BoD assessments (54 studies) and studies linked to the Global Burden of Disease (59 papers). Our results showed that the methods used to perform CRA varied substantially across independent European BoD studies. While there were some methodological choices that were more common than others, we did not observe patterns in terms of country, year or risk factor. Each methodological choice can affect the comparability of estimates between and within countries and/or risk factors, since they might significantly influence the quantification of the attributable burden. From our analysis we observed that the use of CRA was less common for some types of risk factors and outcomes. These included environmental and occupational risk factors, which are more likely to use bottom-up approaches for health outcomes where disease envelopes may not be available. Conclusions: Our review also highlighted misreporting, the lack of uncertainty analysis and the under-investigation of causal relationships in BoD studies. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting BoD studies will help understand differences, avoid misinterpretations thus improving comparability among estimates. Registration: The study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020177477 (available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13690-023-01119-x
U2 - 10.1186/s13690-023-01119-x
DO - 10.1186/s13690-023-01119-x
M3 - Article
SN - 0778-7367
VL - 81
JO - Archives of Public Health
JF - Archives of Public Health
IS - 1
M1 - 116
ER -