The state of health in the European Union (EU-27) in 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 2019.

BACKGROUND: The European Union (EU) faces many health-related challenges. Burden of diseases information and the resulting trends over time are essential for health planning. This paper reports estimates of disease burden in the EU and individual 27 EU countries in 2019, and compares them with those in 2010. METHODS: We used the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study estimates and 95% uncertainty intervals for the whole EU and each country to evaluate age-standardised death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates for Level 2 causes, as well as life expectancy and healthy life expectancy (HALE). RESULTS: In 2019, the age-standardised death and DALY rates in the EU were 465.8 deaths and 20,251.0 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants, respectively. Between 2010 and 2019, there were significant decreases in age-standardised death and YLL rates across EU countries. However, YLD rates remained mainly unchanged. The largest decreases in age-standardised DALY rates were observed for "HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases" and "transport injuries" (each -19%). "Diabetes and kidney diseases" showed a significant increase for age-standardised DALY rates across the EU (3.5%). In addition, "mental disorders" showed an increasing age-standardised YLL rate (14.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There was a clear trend towards improvement in the overall health status of the EU but with differences between countries. EU health policymakers need to address the burden of diseases, paying specific attention to causes such as mental disorders. There are many opportunities for mutual learning among otherwise similar countries with different patterns of disease.

Multimorbidity and frailty are associated with poorer SARS-CoV-2-related outcomes: systematic review of population-based studies.

BACKGROUND: Estimating the risks and impacts of COVID-19 for different health groups at the population level is essential for orienting public health measures. Adopting a population-based approach, we conducted a systematic review to explore: (1) the etiological role of multimorbidity and frailty in developing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related short-term outcomes; and (2) the prognostic role of multimorbidity and frailty in developing short- and long-term outcomes. This review presents the state of the evidence in the early years of the pandemic. It was conducted within the European Union Horizon 2020 program (No: 101018317); Prospero registration: CRD42021249444. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, World Health Organisation COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and PsycINFO were searched between January 2020 and 7 April 2021 for multimorbidity and 1 February 2022 for frailty. Quantitative peer-reviewed studies published in English with population-representative samples and validated multimorbidity and frailty tools were considered. RESULTS: Overall, 9,701 records were screened by title/abstract and 267 with full text. Finally, 14 studies were retained for multimorbidity (etiological role, n = 2; prognostic, n = 13) and 5 for frailty (etiological role, n = 2; prognostic, n = 4). Only short-term outcomes, mainly mortality, were identified. An elevated likelihood of poorer outcomes was associated with an increasing number of diseases, a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, different disease combinations, and an increasing frailty level. DISCUSSION: Future studies, which include the effects of recent virus variants, repeated exposure and vaccination, will be useful for comparing the possible evolution of the associations observed in the earlier waves.

Burden of infectious disease studies in Europe and the United Kingdom: a review of methodological design choices.

This systematic literature review aimed to provide an overview of the characteristics and methods used in studies applying the disability-adjusted life years (DALY) concept for infectious diseases within European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA)/European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries and the United Kingdom. Electronic databases and grey literature were searched for articles reporting the assessment of DALY and its components. We considered studies in which researchers performed DALY calculations using primary epidemiological data input sources. We screened 3053 studies of which 2948 were excluded and 105 studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 22 were multi-country and 83 were single-country studies, of which 46 were from the Netherlands. Food- and water-borne diseases were the most frequently studied infectious diseases. Between 2015 and 2022, the number of burden of infectious disease studies was 1.6 times higher compared to that published between 2000 and 2014. Almost all studies (97%) estimated DALYs based on the incidence- and pathogen-based approach and without social weighting functions; however, there was less methodological consensus with regards to the disability weights and life tables that were applied. The number of burden of infectious disease studies undertaken across Europe has increased over time. Development and use of guidelines will promote performing burden of infectious disease studies and facilitate comparability of the results.

Inequalities in the burden of non-communicable diseases across European countries: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study.

BACKGROUND: Although overall health status in the last decades improved, health inequalities due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) persist between and within European countries. There is a lack of studies giving insights into health inequalities related to NCDs in the European Economic Area (EEA) countries. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to quantify health inequalities in age-standardized disability adjusted life years (DALY) rates for NCDs overall and 12 specific NCDs across 30 EEA countries between 1990 and 2019. Also, this study aimed to determine trends in health inequalities and to identify those NCDs where the inequalities were the highest. METHODS: DALY rate ratios were calculated to determine and compare inequalities between the 30 EEA countries, by sex, and across time. Annual rate of change was used to determine the differences in DALY rate between 1990 and 2019 for males and females. The Gini Coefficient (GC) was used to measure the DALY rate inequalities across countries, and the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) to estimate the average absolute difference in DALY rate across countries. RESULTS: Between 1990 and 2019, there was an overall declining trend in DALY rate, with larger declines among females compared to males. Among EEA countries, in 2019 the highest NCD DALY rate for both sexes were observed for Bulgaria. For the whole period, the highest DALY rate ratios were identified for digestive diseases, diabetes and kidney diseases, substance use disorders, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and chronic respiratory diseases - representing the highest inequality between countries. In 2019, the highest DALY rate ratio was found between Bulgaria and Iceland for males. GC and SII indicated that the highest inequalities were due to CVD for most of the study period - however, overall levels of inequality were low. CONCLUSIONS: The inequality in level 1 NCDs DALYs rate is relatively low among all the countries. CVDs, digestive diseases, diabetes and kidney diseases, substance use disorders, and chronic respiratory diseases are the NCDs that exhibit higher levels of inequality across countries in the EEA. This might be mitigated by applying tailored preventive measures and enabling healthcare access.

Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of "spin" in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit.

BACKGROUND: News stories represent an important source of information. We aimed to evaluate the impact of "spin" (i.e., misrepresentation of study results) in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit. METHODS: We conducted three two-arm, parallel-group, Internet-based randomized trials (RCTs) comparing the interpretation of news stories reported with or without spin. Each RCT considered news stories reporting a different type of study: (1) pre-clinical study, (2) phase I/II non-RCT, and (3) phase III/IV RCT. For each type of study, we identified news stories reported with spin that had earned mention in the press. Two versions of the news stories were used: the version with spin and a version rewritten without spin. Participants were patients/caregivers involved in Inspire, a large online community of more than one million patients/caregivers. The primary outcome was participants' interpretation assessed by one specific question "What do you think is the probability that 'treatment X' would be beneficial to patients?" (scale, 0 [very unlikely] to 10 [very likely]). RESULTS: For each RCT, 300 participants were randomly assigned to assess a news story with spin (n = 150) or without spin (n = 150), and 900 participants assessed a news story. Participants were more likely to consider that the treatment would be beneficial to patients when the news story was reported with spin. The mean (SD) score for the primary outcome for abstracts reported with and without spin for pre-clinical studies was 7.5 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.8) (mean difference [95% CI] 1.7 [1.0-2.3], p < 0.001); for phase I/II non-randomized trials, 7.6 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.7) (mean difference 1.8 [1.0-2.5], p < 0.001); and for phase III/IV RCTs, 7.2 (2.3) versus 4.9 (2.8) (mean difference 2.3 [1.4-3.2], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Spin in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments affects patients'/caregivers' interpretation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03094078 , NCT03094104 , NCT03095586.

Correction to: Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of "spin" in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit.

Figure 3 in the original article [1] is incorrect; labels for secondary outcomes have been shifted and do not correspond to the numbers reported in the table (Additional file 8). The corrected version can be seen ahead. This figure should be used over the figure 3 seen in the original article. This error does not affect the results, interpretation, or conclusion.

Public availability of results of observational studies evaluating an intervention registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are essential for assessing safety. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether results of observational studies evaluating an intervention with safety outcome(s) registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were published and, if not, whether they were available through posting on ClinicalTrials.gov or the sponsor website. METHODS: We identified a cohort of observational studies with safety outcome(s) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov after October 1, 2007, and completed between October 1, 2007, and December 31, 2011. We systematically searched PubMed for a publication, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the sponsor website for results. The main outcomes were the time to the first publication in journals and to the first public availability of the study results (i.e. published or posted on ClinicalTrials.gov or the sponsor website). For all studies with results publicly available, we evaluated the completeness of reporting (i.e. reported with the number of events per arm) of safety outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 489 studies; 334 (68%) were partially or completely funded by industry. Results for only 189 (39%, i.e. 65% of the total target number of participants) were published at least 30 months after the study completion. When searching other data sources, we obtained the results for 53% (n = 158; i.e. 93% of the total target number of participants) of unpublished studies; 31% (n = 94) were posted on ClinicalTrials.gov and 21% (n = 64) on the sponsor website. As compared with non-industry-funded studies, industry-funded study results were less likely to be published but not less likely to be publicly available. Of the 242 studies with a primary outcome recorded as a safety issue, all these outcomes were adequately reported in 86% (114/133) when available in a publication, 91% (62/68) when available on ClinicalTrials.gov, and 80% (33/41) when available on the sponsor website. CONCLUSIONS: Only 39% of observational studies evaluating an intervention with safety outcome(s) registered at ClinicalTrials.gov had their results published at least 30 months after study completion. The registration of these observational studies allowed searching other sources (results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and sponsor website) and obtaining results for half of unpublished studies and 93% of the total target number of participants.

Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention.

BACKGROUND: Spin represents specific reporting strategies, either intentional or unintentional, to convince the reader that the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. The objectives of this study were to 1) develop a classification of spin specific to non-randomized studies assessing an intervention and 2) estimate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of reports of such studies. METHODS: In a first step, we developed a specific classification of spin for non-randomized studies by a literature review and pilot study. In a second step, 2 researchers trained in the field of methodology evaluated the prevalence of spin in the abstract of all non-randomized studies assessing an intervention published in the BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. All disagreements were resolved by consensus. We also determined whether the level of spin in abstract conclusions was high (spin reported without uncertainty or recommendations for further trials), moderate (spin reported with some uncertainty or recommendations for further trials) or low (spin reported with uncertainty and recommendations for further trials). RESULTS: Among the 128 assessed articles assessed, 107 (84%) had at least one example of spin in their abstract. The most prevalent strategy of spin was the use of causal language, identified in 68 (53%) abstracts. Other frequent strategies were linguistic spin, inadequate implications for clinical practice, and lack of focus on harm, identified in 33 (26%), 25 (20%), and 34 (27%) abstracts respectively. Abstract conclusions of 61 (48%) articles featured a high level of spin. CONCLUSION: Abstract of reports of non-randomized studies assessing an intervention frequently includes spin. Efforts to reduce the prevalence of spin in abstract for such studies are needed.

The health state of France before COVID-19 pandemic between 1990 and 2019: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study 2019.

Background: France faces nowadays some major challenges regarding its health care system including medically underserved areas, social health inequalities, and hospital pressures. Various indicators and sources of data allow us to describe the health status of a population and, consequently, to assess the impact of these challenges. We assessed the burden of diseases before COVID-19 in France in 2019 and its evolution from 1990 to 2019, and compared it with Western European countries. Methods: We used specific Global Burden of Diseases (GBD) metrics: socio-demographic index (SDI), life expectancy (LE), healthy life expectancy (HALE), years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) with their 95% uncertainty interval (95% UI). We compared French age-standardized metrics to those for other Western European Countries for both sexes and also between 1990 and 2019. We also described the specific causes of these different metrics. Findings: We observed for life expectancy at birth in France a trend to an improvement over time from 77.2 (95% UI: 77.2-77.3) years in 1990 to 82.9 (82.7-83.1) in 2019, which represented the seventh highest life expectancy among 23 Western European countries. HALE at birth in France increased from 67.0 (64.0-69.7) to 71.5 (68.1-74.5), which represented the fourth highest HALE among 23 Western European countries. In France, the total number of DALY per 100.000 population tended to decrease from 25,192 (22,374-28,351) in 1990 to 18,782 (16,408-21,920) in 2019. As compared to other European countries, the burden due to cardiovascular diseases was lower. Neoplasms and cardio-vascular diseases were the two leading causes of YLLs. Mental and musculoskeletal disorders were the two leading causes of YLDs. Interpretation: Overall, these results highlight a clear trend of improvement in the health status in France with certain differences between western European countries. The health policy makers need to devise interventional strategies to reduce the burden of diseases and injuries, with specific attention to causes such as cancers, cardiovascular diseases, mental health and musculoskeletal disorders. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Subnational inequalities in years of life lost and associations with socioeconomic factors in pre-pandemic Europe, 2009-19: an ecological study.

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities have been associated with shorter lifespans. We aimed to investigate subnational geographical inequalities in all-cause years of life lost (YLLs) and the association between YLLs and socioeconomic factors, such as household income, risk of poverty, and educational attainment, in countries within the European Economic Area (EEA) before the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this ecological study, we extracted demographic and socioeconomic data from Eurostat for 1390 small regions and 285 basic regions for 32 countries in the EEA, which was complemented by a time-trend analysis of subnational regions within the EEA. Age-standardised YLL rates per 100 000 population were estimated from 2009 to 2019 based on methods from the Global Burden of Disease study. Geographical inequalities were assessed using the Gini coefficient and slope index of inequality. Socioeconomic inequalities were assessed by investigating the association between socioeconomic factors (educational attainment, household income, and risk of poverty) and YLLs in 2019 using negative binomial mixed models. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2019, YLLs lowered in almost all subnational regions. The Gini coefficient of YLLs across all EEA regions was 14·2% (95% CI 13·6-14·8) for females and 17·0% (16·3 to 17·7) for males. Relative geographical inequalities in YLLs among women were highest in the UK (Gini coefficient 11·2% [95% CI 10·1-12·3]) and among men were highest in Belgium (10·8% [9·3-12·2]). The highest YLLs were observed in subnational regions with the lowest levels of educational attainment (incident rate ratio [IRR] 1·19 [1·13-1·26] for females; 1·22 [1·16-1·28] for males), household income (1·35 [95% CI 1·19-1·53]), and the highest poverty risk (1·25 [1·18-1·34]). INTERPRETATION: Differences in YLLs remain within, and between, EEA countries and are associated with socioeconomic factors. This evidence can assist stakeholders in addressing health inequities to improve overall disease burden within the EEA. FUNDING: Research Council of Norway; Development, and Innovation Fund of Hungary; Norwegian Institute of Public Medicine; and COST Action 18218 European Burden of Disease Network.

Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act requires results from clinical trials of Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs to be posted at ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 y after trial completion. We compared the timing and completeness of results of drug trials posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on March 27, 2012, for randomized controlled trials of drugs with posted results. For a random sample of these trials, we searched PubMed for corresponding publications. Data were extracted independently from ClinicalTrials.gov and from the published articles for trials with results both posted and published. We assessed the time to first public posting or publishing of results and compared the completeness of results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov versus published in journal articles. Completeness was defined as the reporting of all key elements, according to three experts, for the flow of participants, efficacy results, adverse events, and serious adverse events (e.g., for adverse events, reporting of the number of adverse events per arm, without restriction to statistically significant differences between arms for all randomized patients or for those who received at least one treatment dose). From the 600 trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we randomly sampled 50% (n = 297) had no corresponding published article. For trials with both posted and published results (n = 202), the median time between primary completion date and first results publicly posted was 19 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 30 mo), and the median time between primary completion date and journal publication was 21 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 28 mo). Reporting was significantly more complete at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article for the flow of participants (64% versus 48% of trials, p<0.001), efficacy results (79% versus 69%, p = 0.02), adverse events (73% versus 45%, p<0.001), and serious adverse events (99% versus 63%, p<0.001). The main study limitation was that we considered only the publication describing the results for the primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need to search ClinicalTrials.gov for both unpublished and published trials. Trial results, especially serious adverse events, are more completely reported at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article.

Direct impact of COVID-19 by estimating disability-adjusted life years at national level in France in 2020.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization declared a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), on March 11, 2020. The standardized approach of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) allows for quantifying the combined impact of morbidity and mortality of diseases and injuries. The main objective of this study was to estimate the direct impact of COVID-19 in France in 2020, using DALYs to combine the population health impact of infection fatalities, acute symptomatic infections and their post-acute consequences, in 28 days (baseline) up to 140 days, following the initial infection. METHODS: National mortality, COVID-19 screening, and hospital admission data were used to calculate DALYs based on the European Burden of Disease Network consensus disease model. Scenario analyses were performed by varying the number of symptomatic cases and duration of symptoms up to a maximum of 140 days, defining COVID-19 deaths using the underlying, and associated, cause of death. RESULTS: In 2020, the estimated DALYs due to COVID-19 in France were 990 710 (1472 per 100 000), with 99% of burden due to mortality (982 531 years of life lost, YLL) and 1% due to morbidity (8179 years lived with disability, YLD), following the initial infection. The contribution of YLD reached 375%, assuming the duration of 140 days of post-acute consequences of COVID-19. Post-acute consequences contributed to 49% of the total morbidity burden. The contribution of YLD due to acute symptomatic infections among people younger than 70 years was higher (67%) than among people aged 70 years and above (33%). YLL among people aged 70 years and above, contributed to 74% of the total YLL. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a substantial impact on population health in France in 2020. The majority of population health loss was due to mortality. Men had higher population health loss due to COVID-19 than women. Post-acute consequences of COVID-19 had a large contribution to the YLD component of the disease burden, even when we assume the shortest duration of 28 days, long COVID burden is large. Further research is recommended to assess the impact of health inequalities associated with these estimates.

The R0 package: a toolbox to estimate reproduction numbers for epidemic outbreaks.

BACKGROUND: Several generic methods have been proposed to estimate transmission parameters during an outbreak, especially the reproduction number. However, as of today, no dedicated software exists that implements these methods and allow comparisons. RESULTS: A review of generic methods used to estimate transmissibility parameters during outbreaks was carried out. Most methods used the epidemic curve and the generation time distribution. Two categories of methods were available: those estimating the initial reproduction number, and those estimating a time dependent reproduction number. We implemented five methods as an R library, developed sensitivity analysis tools for each method and provided numerical illustrations of their use. A comparison of the performance of the different methods on simulated datasets is reported. CONCLUSIONS: This software package allows a standardized and extensible approach to the estimation of the reproduction number and generation interval distribution from epidemic curves.

Methodological guidelines to estimate population-based health indicators using linked data and/or machine learning techniques.

BACKGROUND: The capacity to use data linkage and artificial intelligence to estimate and predict health indicators varies across European countries. However, the estimation of health indicators from linked administrative data is challenging due to several reasons such as variability in data sources and data collection methods resulting in reduced interoperability at various levels and timeliness, availability of a large number of variables, lack of skills and capacity to link and analyze big data. The main objective of this study is to develop the methodological guidelines calculating population-based health indicators to guide European countries using linked data and/or machine learning (ML) techniques with new methods. METHOD: We have performed the following step-wise approach systematically to develop the methodological guidelines: i. Scientific literature review, ii. Identification of inspiring examples from European countries, and iii. Developing the checklist of guidelines contents. RESULTS: We have developed the methodological guidelines, which provide a systematic approach for studies using linked data and/or ML-techniques to produce population-based health indicators. These guidelines include a detailed checklist of the following items: rationale and objective of the study (i.e., research question), study design, linked data sources, study population/sample size, study outcomes, data preparation, data analysis (i.e., statistical techniques, sensitivity analysis and potential issues during data analysis) and study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to develop the methodological guidelines for studies focused on population health using linked data and/or machine learning techniques. These guidelines would support researchers to adopt and develop a systematic approach for high-quality research methods. There is a need for high-quality research methodologies using more linked data and ML-techniques to develop a structured cross-disciplinary approach for improving the population health information and thereby the population health.

Regional health care profiles - an improved method for generating case studies on the catchment areas of envisaged primary health care units in Austria: a report to the InfAct Joint Action.

BACKGROUND: The recent Austrian Primary Care Act established new primary health care units (PHCUs) and obliged them to draw up a "care strategy" specifying their focal care tasks and objectives and emphasizing the health care needs of the population in their catchment area with its specific local health and epidemiological profile. The main purpose of these care strategies is thus to ensure that care-providers meet the local needs, but they also provide a rationale for evaluation and organizational development. To assist new PHCUs in establishing care strategies it was necessary to develop a method for automatically generating comprehensive local case studies for any freely definable location in Austria. RESULTS: We designed an interactive report generator capable of producing location-specific regional health care profiles for a PHCU located in any of Austria's 2122 municipalities and of calculating the radius of its catchment area (defined by different levels of maximum car-travelling times). The reports so generated, called "regional health care profiles for primary health care" (RHCPs/PHC), are in comprehensive PDF report format. The core of each report is a set of 35 indicators, classified under five health and health service domains. The reports include an introductory text, definitions, a map, a graphic and tabular presentation of all indicator values, including information on local, supra-regional and national value distribution, a ranking, and numbers of service providers (e.g. pharmacies, surgeries, nursing homes) located within the catchment area. CONCLUSIONS: The RHCPs/PHC support primary health care planning, efforts to improve care-effectiveness, and strategic organizational development by providing comprehensive information on the health of the population, the utilization of health services and the health care structures within the catchment area. In addition to revealing the scope and nature of the health care needed, they also provide information on what public health approaches are necessary. RHCPs/PHC for different locations have already been distributed to numerous stakeholders and primary health care providers in Austria.

Health data collection methods and procedures across EU member states: findings from the InfAct Joint Action on health information.

BACKGROUND: Health-related data are collected from a variety of sources for different purposes, including secondary use for population health monitoring (HM) and health system performance assessment (HSPA). Most of these data sources are not included in databases of international organizations (e.g., WHO, OECD, Eurostat), limiting their use for research activities and policy making. This study aims at identifying and describing collection methods, quality assessment procedures, availability and accessibility of health data across EU Member States (MS) for HM and HSPA. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was developed and administered through an online platform to partners of the InfAct consortium form EU MS to investigate data collections applied in HM and HSPA projects, as well as their methods and procedures. A descriptive analysis of the questionnaire results was performed. RESULTS: Information on 91 projects from 18 EU MS was collected. In these projects, data were mainly collected through administrative sources, population health interview or health examination surveys and from electronic medical records. Tools and methods used for data collection were mostly mandatory reports, self-administered questionnaires, or record linkage of various data sources. One-third of the projects shared data with EU research networks and less than one-third performed quality assessment of their data collection procedures using international standardized criteria. Macrodata were accessible via open access and reusable in 22 projects. Microdata were accessible upon specific request and reusable in 15 projects based on data usage licenses. Metadata was available for the majority of the projects, but followed reporting standards only in 29 projects. Overall, compliance to FAIR Data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) was not optimal across the EU projects. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection and exchange procedures differ across EU MS and research data are not always available, accessible, comparable or reusable for further research and evidence-based policy making. There is a need for an EU-level health information infrastructure and governance to promote and facilitate sharing and dissemination of standardized and comparable health data, following FAIR Data principles, across the EU.

Integrating technical and political views for a sustainable European Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health.

BACKGROUND: Non-Communicable diseases (NCD) are the main contributors to mortality and burden of disease. There is no infrastructure in Europe that could provide health information (HI) on Public Health monitoring and Health Systems Performance (HSP) for research and evidence-informed decision-making. Moreover, there was no EU and European Economic Area Member States (EU/EEA MSs) general consensus, on developing this initiative and guarantee its sustainability. The aim of this study is to analyze the integration of technical and political views made by the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct; Information for Action) and the results obtained from those activities, in terms of advice and national and institutional support to develop an integrated and sustainable European Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH) for research and evidence-informed policy-making. METHODS: InfAct established two main boards, the Technical Dialogues (TDs) and the Assembly of Members (AoM), to provide a platform for discussion with EU/EEA MSs to establish a sustainable infrastructure for HI: 1) The TDs were composed by national technical experts (NTE) with the aim to discuss and provide feedback about scientific aspects, feasibility and EU-added value of the infrastructure proposed by InfAct. 2) The AoM gathered country representatives from Ministries of Health and Research at the highest political level, with the aim of providing policy-oriented advice for the future political acceptance, support, implementation, and development of InfAct's outcomes including DIPoH. The documentation provided for the meetings consisted in Fact-Sheets, where the main results, new methods and proposals were clearly exposed for discussion and assessment; altogether with more extended information of the DIPoH. The documentation was provided to national representatives within one more before each TD and AoM meeting. The Agenda and methodological approaches for each TD and AoM meeting consisted in the presentations of the InfAct outcomes extending the information provided in the Fact-Sheets; followed by a non-structured interaction, exchange of information, discussion and suggestions by the MSs representatives. The outcomes of the non-structured discussions were collected in Minutes of the TD and AoM meetings, and the final version was obtained with the consensus of all participants. Additionally, structured letters of political support were provided to the AoM representatives, for them to consider providing their MS written support for DIPoH. RESULTS: NTE, within the TDs, considered that DIPoH was useful for technical mutual learning and cooperation among and within countries; although they considered that the technical feasibility to uptake InfAct deliverables at the national and EU level was complex. The AoM focused on political support, resources, and expected MSs returns. The AoM representatives agreed in the interest of setting up an integrated and sustainable HI infrastructure and they considered DIPoH to be well-articulated and defined; although, some of them, expressed some barriers for providing DIPoH political support. The AoM representatives stated that the AoM is the most suitable way to inform EU MSs/ACs about future advances of DIPoH. Both boards provided valuable feedback to develop this infrastructure. Eleven countries and sixteen institutions supported the proposal, either by letters of political support or by signing the Memorandum of Understandings (MoU) and three countries, additionally, provided expression of financial commitment, for DIPoH to be added to the ESFRI 2021 roadmap. CONCLUSIONS: TDs and AoM were key forums to develop, advise, advocate and provide support for a sustainable European research infrastructure for Population Health.

Aetiological and prognostic roles of frailty, multimorbidity and socioeconomic characteristics in the development of SARS-CoV-2 health outcomes: protocol for systematic reviews of population-based studies.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence that the impact of COVID-19 crisis may be stronger for individuals with multimorbidity, frailty and lower socioeconomic status. Existing reviews focus on few, mainly short-term effects of COVID-19 illness and patients with single chronic disease. Information is also largely missing for population representative samples.Applying population-based approach, the systematic reviews will have two objectives: (1) to evaluate the aetiological roles of frailty, multimorbidity and socioeconomic status on SARS-CoV-2 infection probability, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation and COVID-19 related mortality among general population and (2) to investigate the prognostic roles of frailty, multimorbidity and socioeconomic characteristics on the risk of hospitalisation, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, COVID-19 mortality, functioning, quality of life, disability, mental health and work absence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: For this ongoing work, four databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and PsycINFO, for the period between January 2020 and April 7 2021. Peer-reviewed published literature in English and all types of population-based studies will be considered. Studies using standard tools to assess multimorbidity such as disease count, comorbidity indices or disease combinations will be retained, as well as studies with standard scales and scores for frailty or measurement of a socioeconomic gradient. Initial search included 10 139 articles, 411 for full-text reading. Results will be summarised by risk factor, objective and outcome. The feasibility of meta-analysis will be determined by the findings and will aim to better understand uncertainties of the results. Quality of studies will be assessed using standardised scales. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be based on published evidence, and it is exempt from the ethical approval. This work is part of the Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI) project. Dissemination of the results will imply conference presentation, submission for scientific publication and PHIRI project report. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021249444.

Burden of Disease of COVID-19: Strengthening the Collaboration for National Studies.

Objectives: Quantifying the combined impact of morbidity and mortality is a key enabler to assessing the impact of COVID-19 across countries and within countries relative to other diseases, regions, or demographics. Differences in methods, data sources, and definitions of mortality due to COVID-19 may hamper comparisons. We describe efforts to support countries in estimating the national-level burden of COVID-19 using disability-adjusted life years. Methods: The European Burden of Disease Network developed a consensus methodology, as well as a range of capacity-building activities to support burden of COVID-19 studies. These activities have supported 11 national studies so far, with study periods between January 2020 and December 2021. Results: National studies dealt with various data gaps and different assumptions were made to face knowledge gaps. Still, they delivered broadly comparable results that allow for interpretation of consistencies, as well as differences in the quantified direct health impact of the pandemic. Discussion: Harmonized efforts and methodologies have allowed for comparable estimates and communication of results. Future studies should evaluate the impact of interventions, and unravel the indirect health impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

The InfAct proposal for a sustainable European health information infrastructure on population health: the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH).

BACKGROUND: In Europe, data on population health is fragmented, difficult to access, project-based and prone to health information inequalities in terms of availability, accessibility and especially in quality between and within countries. This situation is further exacerbated and exposed by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct) that builds on previous works of the BRIDGE Health project, carried out collaborative action to set up a sustainable infrastructure for health information in the European Union (EU). The aim of this paper is to present InfAct's proposal for a sustainable research infrastructure, the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH), which includes the setup of a Health Information Portal on population health to be maintained beyond InfAct's time span. METHODS: The strategy for the proposal was based on three components: scientific initiatives and proposals to improve Health Information Systems (HIS), exploration of technical acceptability and feasibility, and finally obtaining high-level political support.. The technical exploration (Technical Dialogues-TD) was assumed by technical experts proposed by the countries, and political guidance was provided by the Assembly of Members (AoM), which gathered representatives from Ministries of Health and Science of EU/EEA countries. The results from the AoM and the TD were integrated in the sustainability plan compiling all the major outputs of InfAct. RESULTS: The InfAct sustainability plan was organized in three main sections: a proposal of a new research infrastructure on population health (the DIPoH), new health information tools and innovative proposals for HIS, and a comprehensive capacity building programme. These activities were carried out in InfAct and are being further developed in the Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI). PHIRI is a practical rollout of DIPoH facilitating and generating the best available evidence for research on health and wellbeing of populations as impacted by COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The sustainability plan received wide support from Member States and was recognized to have an added value at EU level. Nevertheless, there were several aspects which still need to be considered for the near future such as: (i) a commitment of stable financial and political support by Member States (MSs), (ii) the availability of resources at regional, national and European level to deal with innovations, and (iii) a more direct involvement from EU and international institutions such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD for providing support and sustainable contributions.