IPH response to Department for Regional Development public transport reform consultation

This is the IPH response to the Department for Regional Development's public transport reform consultation.

Prevalence of chronic conditions – Musculoskeletal Conditions

IPH has estimated and forecast the number of adults with MSCs for the years 2010, 2015 and 2020. In the Republic of Ireland, the data are based on the Survey of Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition (SLÁN) 2007 . The data describe the number of people who report that they have experienced doctor-diagnosed MSC in the previous 12 months:     Lower back pain or any other chronic back condition     Rheumatoid arthritis (inflammation of the joints)     Osteoarthritis (arthrosis, joint degradation) Data are  available by age and sex for each Local Health Office of the Health Service Executive (HSE) in the Republic of Ireland. In Northern Ireland, the data are based on the Health and Social Wellbeing Survey 2005/06 and Understanding Society 2009. The data describe the number of adults who:     Have ever consulted a doctor about back pain     Are currently receiving treatment for musculoskeletal problems (such as arthritis, rheumatism)     Have ever been told by a doctor or other health professional that they had have arthritis? Data are available by age and sex for each Local Government District in Northern Ireland. There are significant differences between the definitions used in RoI and NI and North-South comparisons are not valid. The RoI measures relate to specific MSCs in the previous 12 months that had been diagnosed by a doctor. The NI measures relate to doctor-consultations at any time in the past, doctor-diagnosis at any time in the past and current treatment. The IPH estimated prevalence per cents may be marginally different to estimated prevalence per cents taken directly from the reference study. There are two reasons for this: 1) The IPH prevalence estimates relate to 2010 while the reference studies relate to earlier years (Northern Ireland Health and Social Wellbeing Survey 2005/06, Survey of Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition 2007, Understanding Society 2009). Although we assume that the risk of the condition in the risk groups do not change over time, the distribution of the number of people in the risk groups in the population changes over time (eg the population ages).  This new distribution of the risk groups in the population means that the risk of the condition is weighted differently to the reference study and this results in a different overall prevalence estimate. 2) The IPH prevalence estimates are based on a statistical model of the reference study. The model includes a number of explanatory variables to predict the risk of the condition. Therefore the model does not include records from the reference study that are missing data on these explanatory variables. A prevalence estimate for a condition taken directly from the reference study would include these records.

Obesity and central obesity as risk factors for incident dementia and its subtypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

While dementia affects 6-10% of persons 65 years or older, industrialized countries have witnessed an alarming rise in obesity. However, obesity's influence on dementia remains poorly understood. The conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. PUBMED search (1995-2007) resulted in 10 relevant prospective cohort studies of older adults (40-80 years at baseline) with end points being dementia and predictors including adiposity measures, such as body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC). There was a significant U-shaped association between BMI and dementia (P= 0.034), with dementia risk increased for obesity and underweight. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for underweight, overweight and obesity compared with normal weight in relation to incident dementia were: 1.36 (1.07, 1.73), 0.88 (0.60, 1.27) and 1.42 (0.93, 2.18) respectively. Pooled ORs and 95% CI for obesity and incident Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia were 1.80 (1.00, 3.29) vs. 1.73 (0.47, 6.31) and were stronger in studies with long follow-up (>10 years) and young baseline age (