Levelling up health in the early years: A cost-analysis of infant feeding and healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Although breastfeeding is recommended as the optimal form of nutrition in the first six months, it is not sustained as the predominant mode of feeding infants in Scotland. This study estimated the impact of infant feeding choices on primary and secondary healthcare service costs in a 13-year birth cohort. METHOD: Using linked administrative datasets, in a retrospective cohort design of 502,948 singletons born in Scotland between 1997 and 2009, we estimated the cost of GP consultations and hospital admissions by area deprivation and mode of infant feeding up to 6-8 weeks for ten common childhood conditions from birth to 27 months. Additionally, we calculated the potential healthcare savings if all infants in the cohort had been exclusively breastfed at 6-8 weeks. Discounting of 1.5% was applied following current health economic conventions and 2009/10 used as the base year. RESULTS: Over the study period, the estimated cost of hospital admissions in the cohort was £111 million and £2 million for the 2% subset of the cohort with primary care records. Within each quintile of deprivation, exclusively breastfed infants used fewer healthcare services and incurred lower costs compared to infants fed (any) formula milk. At least £10 million of healthcare costs may have been avoided if formula-fed infants had been exclusively breastfed within the first 6-8 weeks of birth. CONCLUSIONS: This study using a representative birth cohort demonstrates how breastmilk can promote equitable child health by reducing childhood illness and healthcare utilisation in the early years.

Relation of Incident Type 1 Diabetes to Recent COVID-19 Infection: Cohort Study Using e-Health Record Linkage in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: Studies using claims databases reported that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection >30 days earlier was associated with an increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes. Using exact dates of diabetes diagnosis from the national register in Scotland linked to virology laboratory data, we sought to replicate this finding. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cohort of 1,849,411 individuals aged <35 years without diabetes, including all those in Scotland who subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, was followed from 1 March 2020 to 22 November 2021. Incident type 1 diabetes was ascertained from the national registry. Using Cox regression, we tested the association of time-updated infection with incident diabetes. Trends in incidence of type 1 diabetes in the population from 2015 through 2021 were also estimated in a generalized additive model. RESULTS: There were 365,080 individuals who had at least one detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up and 1,074 who developed type 1 diabetes. The rate ratio for incident type 1 diabetes associated with first positive test for SARS-CoV-2 (reference category: no previous infection) was 0.86 (95% CI 0.62, 1.21) for infection >30 days earlier and 2.62 (95% CI 1.81, 3.78) for infection in the previous 30 days. However, negative and positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were more frequent in the days surrounding diabetes presentation. In those aged 0-14 years, incidence of type 1 diabetes during 2020-2021 was 20% higher than the 7-year average. CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 diabetes incidence in children increased during the pandemic. However, the cohort analysis suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection itself was not the cause of this increase.

The increasing significance of disease severity in a burden of disease framework.

Recent estimates have reiterated that non-fatal causes of disease, such as low back pain, headaches and depressive disorders, are amongst the leading causes of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). For these causes, the contribution of years lived with disability (YLD) - put simply, ill-health - is what drives DALYs, not mortality. Being able to monitor trends in YLD closely is particularly relevant for countries that sit high on the socio-demographic spectrum of development, as it contributes more than half of all DALYs. There is a paucity of data on how the population-level occurrence of disease is distributed according to severity, and as such, the majority of global and national efforts in monitoring YLD lack the ability to differentiate changes in severity across time and location. This raises uncertainties in interpreting these findings without triangulation with other relevant data sources. Our commentary aims to bring this issue to the forefront for users of burden of disease estimates, as its impact is often easily overlooked as part of the fundamental process of generating DALY estimates. Moreover, the wider health harms of the COVID-19 pandemic have underlined the likelihood of latent and delayed demand in accessing vital health and care services that will ultimately lead to exacerbated disease severity and health outcomes. This places increased importance on attempts to be able to differentiate by both the occurrence and severity of disease.

Widening of inequalities in COVID-19 years of life lost from 2020 to 2021: a Scottish Burden of Disease Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have highlighted the large extent of inequality in adverse COVID-19 health outcomes. Our aim was to monitor changes in overall, and inequalities in, COVID-19 years of life lost to premature mortality (YLL) in Scotland from 2020 and 2021. METHODS: Cause-specific COVID-19 mortality counts were derived at age group and area deprivation level using Scottish death registrations for 2020 and 2021. YLL was estimated by multiplying mortality counts by age-conditional life expectancy from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 reference life table. Various measures of absolute and relative inequality were estimated for triangulation purposes. RESULTS: There were marked inequalities in COVID-19 YLL by area deprivation in 2020, which were further exacerbated in 2021; confirmed across all measures of absolute and relative inequality. Half (51%) of COVID-19 YLL was attributable to inequalities in area deprivation in 2021, an increase from 41% in 2020. CONCLUSION: Despite a highly impactful vaccination programme in preventing mortality, COVID-19 continues to represent a substantial area of fatal population health loss for which inequalities have widened. Tackling systemic inequalities with effective interventions is required to mitigate further unjust health loss in the Scottish population from COVID-19 and other causes of ill-health and mortality.

Measuring disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to COVID-19 in Scotland, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) combine the impact of morbidity and mortality and can enable comprehensive, and comparable, assessments of direct and indirect health harms due to COVID-19. Our aim was to estimate DALYs directly due to COVID-19 in Scotland, during 2020; and contextualise its population impact relative to other causes of disease and injury. METHODS: National deaths and daily case data were used. Deaths were based on underlying and contributory causes recorded on death certificates. We calculated DALYs based on the COVID-19 consensus model and methods outlined by the European Burden of Disease Network. DALYs were presented as a range, using a sensitivity analysis based on Years of Life Lost estimates using: cause-specific; and COVID-19 related deaths. All COVID-19 estimates were for 2020. RESULTS: In 2020, estimates of COVID-19 DALYs in Scotland ranged from 96,500 to 108,200. Direct COVID-19 DALYs were substantial enough to be framed as the second leading cause of disease and injury, with only ischaemic heart disease having a larger impact on population health. Mortality contributed 98% of total DALYs. CONCLUSIONS: The direct population health impact of COVID-19 has been very substantial. Despite unprecedented mitigation efforts, COVID-19 developed from a single identified case in early 2020 to a condition with an impact in Scotland second only to ischaemic heart disease. Periodic estimation of DALYs during 2021, and beyond, will provide indications of the impact of DALYs averted due to the national rollout of the vaccination programme and other continued mitigation efforts, although new variants may pose significant challenges.

Vaccine efficacy against severe COVID-19 in relation to delta variant (B.1.617.2) and time since second dose in patients in Scotland (REACT-SCOT): a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Reports have suggested that the efficacy of vaccines against COVID-19 might have fallen since the delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variant replaced the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant as the predominant variant. We aimed to investigate, for the two main classes of vaccine, whether efficacy against severe COVID-19 has decreased since delta became the predominant variant and whether the efficacy of two doses of vaccine against severe COVID-19 wanes with time since second dose. METHODS: In the REACT-SCOT case-control study, vaccine efficacy was estimated using a matched case-control design that includes all diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in Scotland up to Sept 8, 2021. For every incident case of COVID-19 in the Scottish population, ten controls matched for age rounded to the nearest year, sex, and primary care practice, and alive on the day of presentation of the case that they were matched to were selected using the Community Health Index database. To minimise ascertainment bias we prespecified the primary outcome measure to assess vaccine efficacy as severe COVID-19, defined as diagnosed patients with entry to critical care within 21 days of first positive test, death within 28 days of first positive test, or any death for which COVID-19 was coded as underlying cause. Although the data extracted for this study included cases presenting up to Sept 22, 2021, the analyses reported here are restricted to cases and controls presenting from Dec 1, 2020, to Sept 8, 2021, ensuring follow-up for at least 14 days after presentation date to allow classification of hospitalisation and (for most cases) severity based on entry to critical care or fatal outcome. FINDINGS: During the study period, a total of 5645 severe cases of COVID-19 were recorded; these were matched to 50 096 controls. Of the severe cases, 4495 (80%) were not vaccinated, and of the controls, 36 879 (74%) were not vaccinated. Of the severe cases of COVID-19 who had been vaccinated, 389 had received an mRNA vaccine and 759 had received the ChAdOx1 vaccine. The efficacy of vaccination against severe COVID-19 decreased in May, 2021, coinciding with the replacement of the alpha SARS-CoV-2 variant by the delta variant in Scotland, but this decrease was reversed over the following month. In the most recent time window centred on July 29, 2021, the efficacy of two doses was 91% (95% CI 87-94) for the ChAdOx1 vaccine and 92% (88-95) for mRNA (Pfizer or Moderna) vaccines. The efficacy of the ChAdOx1 vaccine against severe COVID-19 declined with time since second dose to 69% (95% CI 52-80) at 20 weeks from second dose. The efficacy of mRNA vaccines declined in the first ten weeks from second dose but more slowly thereafter to 93% (88-96) at 20 weeks from second dose. INTERPRETATION: Our results are reassuring with respect to concerns that vaccine efficacy against severe COVID-19 might have fallen since the delta variant became predominant, or that efficacy of mRNA vaccines wanes within the first 5-6 months after second dose. However, the efficacy of the ChAdOx1 vaccine against severe COVID-19 wanes substantially by 20 weeks from second dose. Efficacy of mRNA vaccines after 20 weeks and against newer variants remains to be established. Our findings support the case for additional protective measures for those at risk of severe disease, including, but not limited to, booster doses, at times when transmission rates are high or expected to rise. FUNDING: None.

Inequalities in population health loss by multiple deprivation: COVID-19 and pre-pandemic all-cause disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused almost unprecedented change across health, education, the economy and social interaction. It is widely understood that the existing mechanisms which shape health inequalities have resulted in COVID-19 outcomes following this same, familiar, pattern. Our aim was to estimate inequalities in the population health impact of COVID-19 in Scotland, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2020. Our secondary aim was to scale overall, and inequalities in, COVID-19 DALYs against the level of pre-pandemic inequalities in all-cause DALYs, derived from the Scottish Burden of Disease (SBoD) study. METHODS: National deaths and daily case data were input into the European Burden of Disease Network consensus model to estimate DALYs. Total Years of Life Lost (YLL) were estimated for each area-based deprivation quintile of the Scottish population. Years Lived with Disability were proportionately distributed to deprivation quintiles, based on YLL estimates. Inequalities were measured by: the range, Relative Index of Inequality (RII), Slope Index of Inequality (SII), and attributable DALYs were estimated by using the least deprived quintile as a reference. RESULTS: Marked inequalities were observed across several measures. The SII range was 2048 to 2289 COVID-19 DALYs per 100,000 population. The rate in the most deprived areas was around 58% higher than the mean population rate (RII = 1.16), with 40% of COVID-19 DALYs attributed to differences in area-based deprivation. Overall DALYs due to COVID-19 ranged from 7 to 20% of the annual pre-pandemic impact of inequalities in health loss combined across all causes. CONCLUSION: The substantial population health impact of COVID-19 in Scotland was not shared equally across areas experiencing different levels of deprivation. The extent of inequality due to COVID-19 was similar to averting all annual DALYs due to diabetes. In the wider context of population health loss, overall ill-health and mortality due to COVID-19 was, at most, a fifth of the annual population health loss due to inequalities in multiple deprivation. Implementing effective policy interventions to reduce health inequalities must be at the forefront of plans to recover and improve population health.

Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: test negative case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the real world effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S vaccines against confirmed covid-19 symptoms (including the UK variant of concern B.1.1.7), admissions to hospital, and deaths. DESIGN: Test negative case-control study. SETTING: Community testing for covid-19 in England. PARTICIPANTS: 156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System. INTERVENTIONS: Vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were polymerase chain reaction confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, admissions to hospital for covid-19, and deaths with covid-19. RESULTS: Participants aged 80 years and older vaccinated with BNT162b2 before 4 January 2021 had a higher odds of testing positive for covid-19 in the first nine days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore compared with the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted 10 to 13 days after vaccination, reaching a vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% confidence interval 59% to 78%), then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccination effectiveness of 89% (85% to 93%) was found compared with the increased baseline risk. Participants aged 70 years and older vaccinated from 4 January (when ChAdOx1-S delivery commenced) had a similar underlying risk of covid-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (51% to 69%) from 28 to 34 days after vaccination, then plateaued. With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, a further 43% (33% to 52%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission and 51% (37% to 62%) reduced risk of death was observed in those who had received one dose of BNT162b2. Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 and a single dose of BNT162b2 was 85% effective at preventing death with covid-19. CONCLUSION: Vaccination with either one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic covid-19 in older adults, and with further protection against severe disease. Both vaccines showed similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 was associated with further protection against symptomatic disease. A clear effect of the vaccines against the B.1.1.7 variant was found.

Correction to: Population vulnerability to COVID-19 in Europe: a burden of disease analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13690-020-00433-y.].

Population vulnerability to COVID-19 in Europe: a burden of disease analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence has emerged showing that elderly people and those with pre-existing chronic health conditions may be at higher risk of developing severe health consequences from COVID-19. In Europe, this is of particular relevance with ageing populations living with non-communicable diseases, multi-morbidity and frailty. Published estimates of Years Lived with Disability (YLD) from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study help to characterise the extent of these effects. Our aim was to identify the countries across Europe that have populations at highest risk from COVID-19 by using estimates of population age structure and YLD for health conditions linked to severe illness from COVID-19. METHODS: Population and YLD estimates from GBD 2017 were extracted for 45 countries in Europe. YLD was restricted to a list of specific health conditions associated with being at risk of developing severe consequences from COVID-19 based on guidance from the United Kingdom Government. This guidance also identified individuals aged 70 years and above as being at higher risk of developing severe health consequences. Study outcomes were defined as: (i) proportion of population aged 70 years and above; and (ii) rate of YLD for COVID-19 vulnerable health conditions across all ages. Bivariate groupings were established for each outcome and combined to establish overall population-level vulnerability. RESULTS: Countries with the highest proportions of elderly residents were Italy, Greece, Germany, Portugal and Finland. When assessments of population-level YLD rates for COVID-19 vulnerable health conditions were made, the highest rates were observed for Bulgaria, Czechia, Croatia, Hungary and Bosnia and Herzegovina. A bivariate analysis indicated that the countries at high-risk across both measures of vulnerability were: Bulgaria; Portugal; Latvia; Lithuania; Greece; Germany; Estonia; and Sweden. CONCLUSION: Routine estimates of population structures and non-fatal burden of disease measures can be usefully combined to create composite indicators of vulnerability for rapid assessments, in this case to severe health consequences from COVID-19. Countries with available results for sub-national regions within their country, or national burden of disease studies that also use sub-national levels for burden quantifications, should consider using non-fatal burden of disease estimates to estimate geographical vulnerability to COVID-19.

Correction to: Prioritising the development of severity distributions in burden of disease studies for countries in the European region.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13690-019-0385-6.].

Prioritising the development of severity distributions in burden of disease studies for countries in the European region.

Severity distributions are a means of summarising the range of health loss suffered to disease which enables estimates of disease occurrence to be paired with disability weights to estimate Years Lost to Disability (YLD) in burden of disease studies. There is a lack of current data exploring severity distributions, which has led to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study relying on using the same severity distributions across countries and regions across the world. This is also largely true for some national studies, although there are exceptions. Recent evidence has raised concerns that severity distributions are unlikely to be generalisable as major differences arise when using country-specific data to develop severity distributions. These issues raise uncertainties over interpreting YLD estimates, particularly if they are being used to develop and influence policies and to determine priorities across diseases and populations. It is clear that GBD researchers and those carrying out national studies need to work towards ensuring that estimates are based upon country-specific data, and, if possible, that the impact of assumptions are fully tested and understood. There is a lack of strategy about if, where, and how, this could be achieved, particularly around how efforts should be prioritised. This commentary advocates and presents a possible strategic approach to better understanding how efforts may be best placed.

How do world and European standard populations impact burden of disease studies? A case study of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) are an established method for quantifying population health needs and guiding prioritisation decisions. Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates aim to ensure comparability between countries and over time by using age-standardised rates (ASR) to account for differences in the age structure of different populations. Different standard populations are used for this purpose but it is not widely appreciated that the choice of standard may affect not only the resulting rates but also the rankings of causes of DALYs. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the choice of standard, using the example of Scotland. METHODS: DALY estimates were derived from the 2016 Scottish Burden of Disease (SBoD) study for an abridged list of 68 causes of disease/injury, representing a three-year annual average across 2014-16. Crude DALY rates were calculated using Scottish national population estimates. DALY ASRs standardised using the GBD World Standard Population (GBD WSP) were compared to those using the 2013 European Standard Population (ESP2013). Differences in ASR and in rank order within the cause list were summarised for all-cause and for each individual cause. RESULTS: The ranking of causes by DALYs were similar using crude rates or ASR (ESP2013). All-cause DALY rates using ASR (GBD WSP) were around 26% lower. Overall 58 out of 68 causes had a lower ASR using GBD WSP compared with ESP2013, with the largest falls occurring for leading causes of mortality observed in older ages. Gains in ASR were much smaller in absolute scale and largely affected causes that operated early in life. These differences were associated with a substantial change to the ranking of causes when GBD WSP was used compared with ESP2013. CONCLUSION: Disease rankings based on DALY ASRs are strongly influenced by the choice of standard population. While GBD WSP offers international comparability, within-country analyses based on DALY ASRs should reflect local age structures. For European countries, including Scotland, ESP2013 may better guide local priority setting by avoiding large disparities occurring between crude and age-standardised results sets, which could potentially confuse non-technical audiences.

The impact of worldwide, national and sub-national severity distributions in Burden of Disease studies: A case study of cancers in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly Burden of Disease (BOD) measures are being used to influence policy decisions because they summarise the complete effects of morbidity and mortality in an equitable manner. An important element of producing non-fatal BOD estimates are severity distributions. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study use the same severity distributions across countries due to a lack of available country-specific data. In the Scottish BOD (SBOD) study we developed national severity distributions for cancer types. The main aim of this study was to consider the extent to which the use of worldwide severity distributions in BOD studies are influencing cross-country comparisons, by comparing weighted-average disability weights (DW) based on GBD severity distributions with nationally derived severity distributions in Scotland for cancer types. METHODS: We obtained individual records from the Scottish Cancer Registry for 21 cancer types and linked these to registered deaths. We estimated prevalent cancer cases for 2016 and assigned each case to sequelae using GBD 2016 study definitions. We compared the impact of using severity distributions based on GBD 2016, a Scotland-wide distribution, and distributions specific to deprivation strata in Scotland, on the weighted-average DW for each cancer type. RESULTS: The relative difference in point estimates of weighted-average DW based on GBD 2016 worldwide severity distributions compared with Scottish national severity distributions resulted in overestimates in the majority of cancers (17 out of 21 cancer types). The largest overestimates were for gallbladder and biliary tract cancer (70.8%), oesophageal cancer (31.6%) and pancreatic cancer (31.2%). Furthermore, the use of weighted-average DW based on Scottish national severity distributions rather than sub-national Scottish severity distributions stratified by deprivation quintile overestimated weighted-average DW in the least deprived areas (16 out of 18 cancer types), and underestimated in the most deprived areas (16 out of 18 cancer types). CONCLUSION: Our findings illustrate a bias in point estimates of weighted-average DW created using worldwide severity distributions. This bias would have led to the misrepresentation of non-fatal estimates of the burden of individual cancers, and underestimated the scale of socioeconomic inequality in this non-fatal burden. This highlights the importance of not interpreting non-fatal estimates of burden of disease too precisely, especially for sub-national estimates and those comparing populations when relying on data inputs from other countries. It is essential to ensure that any estimates are based upon country-specific data as far as possible.

What causes the burden of stroke in Scotland? A comparative risk assessment approach linking the Scottish Health Survey to administrative health data.

BACKGROUND: The availability of robust evidence to inform effective public health decision making is becoming increasingly important, particularly in a time of competing health demands and limited resources. Comparative Risk Assessments (CRA) are useful in this regard as they quantify the contribution of modifiable exposures to the disease burden in a population. The aim of this study is to assess the contribution of a range of modifiable exposures to the burden of disease due to stroke, an important public health problem in Scotland. METHODS: We used individual-level response data from eight waves (1995-2012) of the Scottish Health Survey linked to acute hospital discharge records from the Scottish Morbidity Record 01 (SMR01) and cause of death records from the death register. Stroke was defined using the International Classification of Disease (ICD) 9 codes 430-431, 433-4 and 436; and the ICD10 codes I60-61 and I63-64 and stroke incidence was defined as a composite of an individual's first hospitalisation or death from stroke. A literature review identified exposures causally linked to stroke. Exposures were mapped to the layers of the Dahlgren & Whitehead model of the determinants of health and Population Attributable Fractions were calculated for each exposure deemed a significant causal risk of stroke from a Cox Proportional Hazards Regression model. Population Attributable Fractions were not summed as they may add to more than 100% due to the possibility of a person being exposed to more than one exposure simultaneously. RESULTS: Overall, the results suggest that socioeconomic factors explain the largest proportion of incident stroke hospitalisations and deaths, after adjustment for confounding. After DAG adjustment, low education explained 38.8% (95% Confidence Interval 26.0% to 49.4%, area deprivation (as measured by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) 34.9% (95% CI 26.4 to 42.4%), occupational social class differences 30.3% (95% CI 19.4% to 39.8%), high systolic blood pressure 29.6% (95% CI 20.6% to 37.6%), smoking 25.6% (95% CI 17.9% to 32.6%) and area deprivation (as measured by the Carstairs area deprivation Index) 23.5% (95% CI 14.4% to 31.7%), of incident strokes in Scotland after adjustment. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for prioritising interventions that tackle socioeconomic inequalities as a means of achieving the greatest reduction in avoidable strokes in Scotland. Future work to disentangle the proportion of the effect of deprivation transmitted through intermediate mediators on the pathway between socioeconomic inequalities and stroke may offer additional opportunities to reduce the incidence of stroke in Scotland.