John N Newton

UK health performance: findings of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

BACKGROUND The UK has had universal free health care and public health programmes for more than six decades. Several policy initiatives and structural reforms of the health system have been undertaken. Health expenditure has increased substantially since 1990, albeit from relatively low levels compared with other countries. We used data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2010 (GBD 2010) to examine the patterns of health loss in the UK, the leading preventable risks that explain some of these patterns, and how UK outcomes compare with a set of comparable countries in the European Union and elsewhere in 1990 and 2010. METHODS We used results of GBD 2010 for 1990 and 2010 for the UK and 18 other comparator nations (the original 15 members of the European Union, Australia, Canada, Norway, and the USA; henceforth EU15+). We present analyses of trends and relative performance for mortality, causes of death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE). We present results for 259 diseases and injuries and for 67 risk factors or clusters of risk factors relevant to the UK. We assessed the UKs rank for age-standardised YLLs and DALYs for their leading causes compared with EU15+ in 1990 and 2010. We estimated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for all measures. FINDINGS For both mortality and disability, overall health has improved substantially in absolute terms in the UK from 1990 to 2010. Life expectancy in the UK increased by 4·2 years (95% UI 4·2-4·3) from 1990 to 2010. However, the UK performed significantly worse than the EU15+ for age-standardised death rates, age-standardised YLL rates, and life expectancy in 1990, and its relative position had worsened by 2010. Although in most age groups, there have been reductions in age-specific mortality, for men aged 30-34 years, mortality rates have hardly changed (reduction of 3·7%, 95% UI 2·7-4·9). In terms of premature mortality, worsening ranks are most notable for men and women aged 20-54 years. For all age groups, the contributions of Alzheimers disease (increase of 137%, 16-277), cirrhosis (65%, ?15 to 107), and drug use disorders (577%, 71-942) to premature mortality rose from 1990 to 2010. In 2010, compared with EU15+, the UK had significantly lower rates of age-standardised YLLs for road injury, diabetes, liver cancer, and chronic kidney disease, but significantly greater rates for ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower respiratory infections, breast cancer, other cardiovascular and circulatory disorders, oesophageal cancer, preterm birth complications, congenital anomalies, and aortic aneurysm. Because YLDs per person by age and sex have not changed substantially from 1990 to 2010 but age-specific mortality has been falling, the importance of chronic disability is rising. The major causes of YLDs in 2010 were mental and behavioural disorders (including substance abuse; 21·5% [95 UI 17·2-26·3] of YLDs), and musculoskeletal disorders (30·5% [25·5-35·7]). The leading risk factor in the UK was tobacco (11·8% [10·5-13·3] of DALYs), followed by increased blood pressure (9·0 % [7·5-10·5]), and high body-mass index (8·6% [7·4-9·8]). Diet and physical inactivity accounted for 14·3% (95% UI 12·8-15·9) of UK DALYs in 2010. INTERPRETATION The performance of the UK in terms of premature mortality is persistently and significantly below the mean of EU15+ and requires additional concerted action. Further progress in premature mortality from several major causes, such as cardiovascular diseases and cancers, will probably require improved public health, prevention, early intervention, and treatment activities. The growing burden of disability, particularly from mental disorders, substance use, musculoskeletal disorders, and falls deserves an integrated and strategic response. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Hierarchies and cliques in the social networks of health care professionals: implications for the design of dissemination strategies

Interest in how best to influence the behaviour of clinicians in the interests of both clinical and cost effectiveness has rekindled concern with the social networks of health care professionals. Ever since the seminal work of Coleman et al. [Coleman, J.S., Katz, E., Menzel, H., 1966. Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.], networks have been seen as important in the process by which clinicians adopt (or fail to adopt) new innovations in clinical practice. Yet very little is actually known about the social networks of clinicians in modern health care settings. This paper describes the professional social networks of two groups of health care professionals, clinical directors of medicine and directors of nursing, in hospitals in England. We focus on network density, centrality and centralisation because these characteristics have been linked to access to information, social influence and social control processes. The results show that directors of nursing are more central to their networks than clinical directors of medicine and that their networks are more hierarchical. Clinical directors of medicine tend to be embedded in much more densely connected networks which we describe as cliques. The hypotheses that the networks of directors of nursing are better adapted to gathering and disseminating information than clinical directors of medicine, but that the latter could be more potent instruments for changing, or resisting changes, in clinical behaviour, follow from a number of sociological theories. We conclude that professional socialisation and structural location are important determinants of social networks and that these factors could usefully be considered in the design of strategies to inform and influence clinicians.

Practice based, longitudinal, qualitative interview study of computerised evidence based guidelines in primary care

Abstract Objective: To understand the factors influencing the adoption of a computerised clinical decision support system for two chronic diseases in general practice. Design: Practice based, longitudinal, qualitative interview study. Setting: Five general practices in north east England. Participants: 13 respondents (two practice managers, three nurses, and eight general practitioners) gave a total of 19 semistructured interviews. 40 people in practices included in the randomised controlled trial (34 doctors, three nurses) and interview study (three doctors, one previously interviewed) gave feedback. Results: Negative comments about the decision support system significantly outweighed the positive or neutral comments. Three main areas of concern among clinicians emerged: timing of the guideline trigger, ease of use of the system, and helpfulness of the content. Respondents did not feel that the system fitted well within the general practice context. Experience of “on-demand” information sources, which were generally more positively viewed, informed the comments about the system. Some general practitioners suggested that nurses might find the guideline content more clinically useful and might be more prepared to use a computerised decision support system, but lack of feedback from nurses who had experienced the system limited the ability to assess this. Conclusions: Significant barriers exist to the use of complex clinical decision support systems for chronic disease by general practitioners. Key issues include the relevance and accuracy of messages and the flexibility to respond to other factors influencing decision making in primary care. What is already known on this topic Randomised controlled trials of complex computerised decision support systems have found low rates of use and no effects on process and outcomes of care What this study adds Clinicians found a computerised decision support system for chronic disease in general practice to be difficult to use and unhelpful clinically It did not fit well into a general practice consultation and compared unfavourably with “on-demand” information “Active” decision support can make clinicians aware of gaps between their own practice and “best” practice, but computer prompts need to be relevant and accurate

Changes in health in England, with analysis by English regions and areas of deprivation, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Summary Background In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013), knowledge about health and its determinants has been integrated into a comparable framework to inform health policy. Outputs of this analysis are relevant to current policy questions in England and elsewhere, particularly on health inequalities. We use GBD 2013 data on mortality and causes of death, and disease and injury incidence and prevalence to analyse the burden of disease and injury in England as a whole, in English regions, and within each English region by deprivation quintile. We also assess disease and injury burden in England attributable to potentially preventable risk factors. England and the English regions are compared with the remaining constituent countries of the UK and with comparable countries in the European Union (EU) and beyond. Methods We extracted data from the GBD 2013 to compare mortality, causes of death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with a disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in England, the UK, and 18 other countries (the first 15 EU members [apart from the UK] and Australia, Canada, Norway, and the USA [EU15+]). We extended elements of the analysis to English regions, and subregional areas defined by deprivation quintile (deprivation areas). We used data split by the nine English regions (corresponding to the European boundaries of the Nomenclature for Territorial Statistics level 1 [NUTS 1] regions), and by quintile groups within each English region according to deprivation, thereby making 45 regional deprivation areas. Deprivation quintiles were defined by area of residence ranked at national level by Index of Multiple Deprivation score, 2010. Burden due to various risk factors is described for England using new GBD methodology to estimate independent and overlapping attributable risk for five tiers of behavioural, metabolic, and environmental risk factors. We present results for 306 causes and 2337 sequelae, and 79 risks or risk clusters. Findings Between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy from birth in England increased by 5·4 years (95% uncertainty interval 5·0–5·8) from 75·9 years (75·9–76·0) to 81·3 years (80·9–81·7); gains were greater for men than for women. Rates of age-standardised YLLs reduced by 41·1% (38·3–43·6), whereas DALYs were reduced by 23·8% (20·9–27·1), and YLDs by 1·4% (0·1–2·8). For these measures, England ranked better than the UK and the EU15+ means. Between 1990 and 2013, the range in life expectancy among 45 regional deprivation areas remained 8·2 years for men and decreased from 7·2 years in 1990 to 6·9 years in 2013 for women. In 2013, the leading cause of YLLs was ischaemic heart disease, and the leading cause of DALYs was low back and neck pain. Known risk factors accounted for 39·6% (37·7–41·7) of DALYs; leading behavioural risk factors were suboptimal diet (10·8% [9·1–12·7]) and tobacco (10·7% [9·4–12·0]). Interpretation Health in England is improving although substantial opportunities exist for further reductions in the burden of preventable disease. The gap in mortality rates between men and women has reduced, but marked health inequalities between the least deprived and most deprived areas remain. Declines in mortality have not been matched by similar declines in morbidity, resulting in people living longer with diseases. Health policies must therefore address the causes of ill health as well as those of premature mortality. Systematic action locally and nationally is needed to reduce risk exposures, support healthy behaviours, alleviate the severity of chronic disabling disorders, and mitigate the effects of socioeconomic deprivation. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Public Health England.

Changes in health in England with analysis by English region and areas of deprivation: findings of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Summary Background In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013), knowledge about health and its determinants has been integrated into a comparable framework to inform health policy. Outputs of this analysis are relevant to current policy questions in England and elsewhere, particularly on health inequalities. We use GBD 2013 data on mortality and causes of death, and disease and injury incidence and prevalence to analyse the burden of disease and injury in England as a whole, in English regions, and within each English region by deprivation quintile. We also assess disease and injury burden in England attributable to potentially preventable risk factors. England and the English regions are compared with the remaining constituent countries of the UK and with comparable countries in the European Union (EU) and beyond. Methods We extracted data from the GBD 2013 to compare mortality, causes of death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with a disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in England, the UK, and 18 other countries (the first 15 EU members [apart from the UK] and Australia, Canada, Norway, and the USA [EU15+]). We extended elements of the analysis to English regions, and subregional areas defined by deprivation quintile (deprivation areas). We used data split by the nine English regions (corresponding to the European boundaries of the Nomenclature for Territorial Statistics level 1 [NUTS 1] regions), and by quintile groups within each English region according to deprivation, thereby making 45 regional deprivation areas. Deprivation quintiles were defined by area of residence ranked at national level by Index of Multiple Deprivation score, 2010. Burden due to various risk factors is described for England using new GBD methodology to estimate independent and overlapping attributable risk for five tiers of behavioural, metabolic, and environmental risk factors. We present results for 306 causes and 2337 sequelae, and 79 risks or risk clusters. Findings Between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy from birth in England increased by 5·4 years (95% uncertainty interval 5·0–5·8) from 75·9 years (75·9–76·0) to 81·3 years (80·9–81·7); gains were greater for men than for women. Rates of age-standardised YLLs reduced by 41·1% (38·3–43·6), whereas DALYs were reduced by 23·8% (20·9–27·1), and YLDs by 1·4% (0·1–2·8). For these measures, England ranked better than the UK and the EU15+ means. Between 1990 and 2013, the range in life expectancy among 45 regional deprivation areas remained 8·2 years for men and decreased from 7·2 years in 1990 to 6·9 years in 2013 for women. In 2013, the leading cause of YLLs was ischaemic heart disease, and the leading cause of DALYs was low back and neck pain. Known risk factors accounted for 39·6% (37·7–41·7) of DALYs; leading behavioural risk factors were suboptimal diet (10·8% [9·1–12·7]) and tobacco (10·7% [9·4–12·0]). Interpretation Health in England is improving although substantial opportunities exist for further reductions in the burden of preventable disease. The gap in mortality rates between men and women has reduced, but marked health inequalities between the least deprived and most deprived areas remain. Declines in mortality have not been matched by similar declines in morbidity, resulting in people living longer with diseases. Health policies must therefore address the causes of ill health as well as those of premature mortality. Systematic action locally and nationally is needed to reduce risk exposures, support healthy behaviours, alleviate the severity of chronic disabling disorders, and mitigate the effects of socioeconomic deprivation. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Public Health England.

Clinical guidelines: An ambitious national strategy

The NHS Executive has published its approach to the development, appraisal, and application of clinical guidelines.1 In principle, guidelines are attractive because of the potential of standardising clinical practice around an appropriate norm. Concerns about them include the amount of time and effort required to produce and update really good guidelines, the variable quality of existing guidelines, and the danger of inadvertently suppressing innovative or patient centred care by imposing an imperfect external standard.2 3 Many of these concerns have been addressed by the NHS Executive in its document, which conveys throughout a non-directive, “light touch” approach to the effectiveness initiative. Clinical guidelines are defined as “systematically developed statements which assist clinicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate treatment for specific conditions,” a definition which is likely to be widely accepted. The authors advise against using the term “protocol” and reinforce the distinction between nationally and locally developed clinical guidelines. The status of guidelines as guidance, rather than …

Geographical variation in hospital admission rates: an analysis of workload in the Oxford region, England.

OBJECTIVE--To measure variation in hospital admission rates between health districts in part of the English NHS, comparing a wide range of medical and surgical conditions. DESIGN--Retrospective analysis of interdistrict variation using linked routine hospital admission data. Comparisons were also made with levels of variation reported from the USA. SETTING--Oxford Regional Health Authority, 1979-86. SUBJECTS--Six district health authorities--total study population 2.1 million people, 1.6 million hospital admissions. MAIN MEASURES--Age and sex standardised hospital admission rates for resident populations for individual operations and diagnoses; systematic components of variation (SCV). RESULTS--Of 118 standard operation groups, 38 (26% of surgical workload) showed high variation (SCV 16 or more) and 40 (36% of surgical workload) showed low variation (SCV < 4). Operations (SCV) with very low levels of variation included prostatectomy (0.1), inguinal herniorraphy (0.9), and cholecystectomy (1.3). Rates were more variable for myringotomy (3.7), hysterectomy (4.3), dilatation and curettage (5.6), and tonsillectomy (6.2). The SCV was high for only four of the 40 commonest medical causes of admission, and was low for 18 of them. CONCLUSIONS--Most admissions in the Oxford region were for conditions that did not show a great deal of variation in admission rates. The level of variation for many surgical procedures was less than that reported in studies from the USA. Variation was no greater for medical causes of admission than for surgical conditions. Large scale variation may not be an inevitable consequence of autonomous clinical practice.

Evidence for Health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice

Even the highest quality evidence will have little impact unless it is incorporated into decision-making for health. It is therefore critical to overcome the many barriers to using evidence in decision-making, including (1) missing the window of opportunity, (2) knowledge gaps and uncertainty, (3) controversy, irrelevant and conflicting evidence, as well as (4) vested interests and conflicts of interest. While this is certainly not a comprehensive list, it covers a number of main themes discussed in the knowledge translation literature on this topic, and better understanding these barriers can help readers of the evidence to be more savvy knowledge users and help researchers overcome challenges to getting their evidence into practice. Thus, the first step in being able to use research evidence for improving population health is ensuring that the evidence is available at the right time and in the right format and language so that knowledge users can take the evidence into consideration alongside a multitude of other factors that also influence decision-making. The sheer volume of scientific publications makes it difficult to find the evidence that can actually help inform decisions for health. Policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, require context-specific evidence to ensure local relevance. Knowledge synthesis and dissemination of policy-relevant local evidence is important, but it is still not enough. There are times when the interpretation of the evidence leads to various controversies and disagreements, which act as barriers to the uptake of evidence. Research evidence can also be influenced and misused for various aims and agendas. It is therefore important to ensure that any new evidence comes from reliable sources and is interpreted in light of the overall body of scientific literature. It is not enough to simply produce evidence, nor even to synthesize and package evidence into a more user-friendly format. Particularly at the policy level, political savvy is also needed to ensure that vested interests do not undermine decisions that can impact the health of individuals and populations.

How Cost-Effective Is Oral Isotretinoin?

PURPOSE To consider whether oral isotretinoin (Roaccutane/Accutane) represents good value compared with typical alternative treatments for moderate or severe acne. PROCEDURES Published reports were reviewed on the comparative effectiveness of oral isotretinoin and its alternatives and on their relative costs. RESULTS Observational studies of clinical and patient-assessed outcomes suggest that oral isotretinoin is much more effective than available alternatives. The costs of treatment with isotretinoin are greater in the first year, but substantial cost savings accrue in subsequent years. CONCLUSIONS Isotretinoin is more cost-effective than long-term antibiotic therapy mainly because of its greater efficacy but also because of long-term cost savings. MESSAGE The costs and benefits of alternative treatments for acne should be assessed over a period of at least 2 years, preferably longer. The higher initial cost of oral isotretinoin should not be a barrier to its use where the drug is clinically indicated.

Evidence for Health I: Producing evidence for improving health and reducing inequities

In an ideal world, researchers and decision-makers would be involved from the outset in co-producing evidence, with local health needs assessments informing the research agenda and research evidence informing the actions taken to improve health. The first step in improving the health of individuals and populations is therefore gaining a better understanding of what the main health problems are, and of these, which are the most urgent priorities by using both quantitative data to develop a health portrait and qualitative data to better understand why the local population thinks that addressing certain health challenges should be prioritized in their context. Understanding the causes of these health problems often involves analytical research, such as case-control and cohort studies, or qualitative studies to better understand how more complex exposures lead to specific health problems (e.g. by interviewing local teenagers discovering that watching teachers smoke in the school yard, peer pressure, and media influence smoking initiation among youth). Such research helps to develop a logic model to better map out the proximal and distal causes of poor health and to determine potential pathways for intervening and impacting health outcomes. Rarely is there a single ‘cure’ or stand-alone intervention, but rather, a continuum of strategies are needed from diagnosis and treatment of patients already affected, to disease prevention, health promotion and addressing the upstream social determinants of health. Research for developing and testing more upstream interventions must often go beyond randomized controlled trials, which are expensive, less amenable to more complex interventions, and can be associated with certain ethical challenges. Indeed, a much neglected area of the research cycle is implementation and evaluation research, which often involves quasi-experimental research study designs as well as qualitative research, to better understand how to derive the greatest benefit from existing interventions and ways of maximizing health improvements in specific local contexts. There is therefore a need to alter current incentive structures within the research enterprise to place greater emphasis on implementation and evaluation research conducted in collaboration with knowledge users who are in a position to use the findings in practice to improve health.