The evolution of the Global Burden of Disease framework for disease, injury and risk factor quantification: Developing the evidence base for national, regional and global public health action

Reliable, comparable information about the main causes of disease and injury in populations, and how these are changing, is a critical input for debates about priorities in the health sector. Traditional sources of information about the descriptive epidemiology of diseases, injuries and risk factors are generally incomplete, fragmented and of uncertain reliability and comparability. Lack of a standardized measurement framework to permit comparisons across diseases and injuries, as well as risk factors, and failure to systematically evaluate data quality have impeded comparative analyses of the true public health importance of various conditions and risk factors. As a consequence the impact of major conditions and hazards on population health has been poorly appreciated, often leading to a lack of public health investment. Global disease and risk factor quantification improved dramatically in the early 1990s with the completion of the first Global Burden of Disease Study. For the first time, the comparative importance of over 100 diseases and injuries, and ten major risk factors, for global and regional health status could be assessed using a common metric (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) which simultaneously accounted for both premature mortality and the prevalence, duration and severity of the non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. As a consequence, mental health conditions and injuries, for which non-fatal outcomes are of particular significance, were identified as being among the leading causes of disease/injury burden worldwide, with clear implications for policy, particularly prevention. A major achievement of the Study was the complete global descriptive epidemiology, including incidence, prevalence and mortality, by age, sex and Region, of over 100 diseases and injuries. National applications, further methodological research and an increase in data availability have led to improved national, regional and global estimates for 2000, but substantial uncertainty around the disease burden caused by major conditions, including, HIV, remains. The rapid implementation of cost-effective data collection systems in developing countries is a key priority if global public policy to promote health is to be more effectively informed.

The burden of mental disorders: a comparison of methods between the Australian burden of disease studies and the Global Burden of Disease study

The national and Victorian burden of disease studies in Australia set out to examine critically the methods used in the Global Burden of Disease study to estimate the burden of mental disorders. The main differences include the use of a different set of disability weights allowing estimates in greater detail by level of severity, adjustments for comorbidity between mental disorders, a greater number of menta I disorders measured, and model ling of substance use disorders, anxiety disorders and bipolar disorder as chronic conditions. Uniform age-weighting in the Australian studies produces considerably lower estimates of the burden due to mental disorders in comparison with age-weighted disability-adjusted life years. A lack of follow-up data on people with mental disorders who are identified in cross-sectional surveys poses the greatest challenge in determining the burden of mental disorders more accurately.

The Australian Burden of Disease Study: measuring the loss of health from diseases, injuries and risk factors

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 adapted and applied to Australian population health data. Depression was found to be the top-ranking cause of non-fatal disease burden in Australia, causing 8% of the total years lost due to disability in 1996. Mental disorders overall were responsible for nearly 30% of the non-fatal disease burden. The leading causes of total disease burden (disability-adjusted life years [DALYs]) were ischaemic heart disease and stroke, together causing nearly 18% of the total disease burden. Depression was the fourth leading cause of disease burden, accounting for 3.7% of the total burden. Of the 10 major risk factors to which the disease burden can be attributed, tobacco smoking causes an estimated 10% of the total disease burden in Australia, followed by physical inactivity (7%).

The burden of mental disorders in Victoria, 1996

Background: Between 1998 and 1999, a burden of disease assessment was carried out in Victoria, Australia applying and improving on the methods of the Global Burden of Disease Study. This paper describes the methods and results of the calculations of the burden due to 22 mental disorders, adding 14 conditions not included in previous burden of disease estimates, Methods: The National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing provided recent data on the occurrence of the major adult mental disorders in Australia. Data from international studies and expert advice further contributed to the construction of disease models, describing each condition in terms of incidence, average duration and level of severity, with adjustments for comorbidity with other mental disorders. Disability weights for the time spent in different states of mental ill health were borrowed mainly from a study in the Netherlands, supplemented by weights derived in a local extrapolation exercise. Results: Mental disorders were the third largest group of conditions contributing to the burden of disease in Victoria, ranking behind cancers and cardiovascular diseases. Depression was the greatest cause of disability in both men and women. Eight other mental disorders in men and seven in women ranked among the top twenty causes of disability. Conclusions: Insufficient information on the natural history of many of the mental disorders, the limited information on the validity of mental disorder diagnoses in community surveys and considerable differences between ICD-10 and DSM-IV defined diagnoses were the main concerns about the accuracy of the estimates. Similar and often greater concerns have been raised in relation to the estimation of the burden from common non-fatal physical conditions such as asthma, diabetes and osteoarthritis. In comparison, psychiatric epidemiology can boast greater scientific rigour in setting standards for population surveys.

Small area population disease burden

Small area health statistics has assumed increasing importance as the focus of population and public health moves to a more individualised approach of smaller area populations. Small populations and low event occurrence produce difficulties in interpretation and require appropriate statistical methods, including for age adjustment. There are also statistical questions related to multiple comparisons. Privacy and confidentiality issues include the possibility of revealing information on individuals or health care providers by fine cross-tabulations. Interpretation of small area population differences in health status requires consideration of migrant and Indigenous composition, socio-economic status and rural-urban geography before assessment of the effects of physical environmental exposure and services and interventions. Burden of disease studies produce a single measure for morbidity and mortality - disability adjusted life year (DALY) - which is the sum of the years of life lost (YLL) from premature mortality and the years lived with disability (YLD) for particular diseases (or all conditions). Calculation of YLD requires estimates of disease incidence (and complications) and duration, and weighting by severity. These procedures often mean problematic assumptions, as does future discounting and age weighting of both YLL and YLD. Evaluation of the Victorian small area population disease burden study presents important cross-disciplinary challenges as it relies heavily on synthetic approaches of demography and economics rather than on the empirical methods of epidemiology. Both empirical and synthetic methods are used to compute small area mortality and morbidity, disease burden, and then attribution to risk factors. Readers need to examine the methodology and assumptions carefully before accepting the results.

The burden of disease and injury in Australia

An overview of the results of the Australian Burden of Disease (ABD) study is presented. The ABD study was the first to use methodology developed for the Global Burden of Disease study to measure the burden of disease and injury in a developed country. In 1996, mental disorders were the main causes of disability burden, responsible for nearly 30% of total years of life lost to disability (YLD), with depression accounting for 8% of the total YLD. Ischaemic heart disease and stroke were the main contributors to the disease burden disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), together causing nearly 18% of the total disease burden. Risk factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, hypertension, high blood cholesterol, obesity and inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption were responsible for much of the overall disease burden in Australia. The lessons learnt from the ABD study are discussed, together with methodological issues that require further attention.