Differences in the incidence and mortality of digestive cancer between Global Cancer Observatory 2020 and Global Burden of Disease 2019.

The burden of digestive cancers is increasing worldwide. The Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) 2020 and the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 are two primary cancer databases, which have a significant impact on policy formulation and resource allocation. We aim to compare the incidence and mortality of digestive cancers between them. Digestive cancer (esophageal, stomach, colorectal, liver, gallbladder and pancreatic cancer) incidence was obtained from the Cancer Today and GBD 2019 result tool. The top five countries with the most or minor difference between GLOBOCAN 2020 and GBD 2019 in age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) of digestive cancers were identified. A systematic search on the incidence of specific digestive cancer in selected countries from PubMed and Embase was conducted, and 20 of 281 publications were included. The most significant differences in digestive cancers incidence were commonly found in Asian countries (70%), particularly Indonesia, Vietnam and Myanmar, located in Southeast Asia. The ASIRs for most digestive cancers, except liver cancer, in GLOBOCAN 2020 were higher than those in GBD 2019. Gallbladder cancer had the highest average ratio, followed by liver cancer. The most commonly used standard population was Segi's standard population, followed by the World Health Organization standard population. The data sources nor the processing methods of GLOBOCAN 2020 and GBD 2019 were not similar. Low- and middle-income countries without population-based cancer registries were more likely to have selection bias in data collection and amplify regional variations of etiological factors. Better judgments on the quality of cancer data can be made.

The short-term health and psychosocial impacts of domestic energy efficiency investments in low-income areas: a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that living in fuel poverty and cold homes contributes to poor physical and mental health, and that interventions targeted at those living in poor quality housing may lead to health improvements. However, little is known about the socio-economic intermediaries and processes that contribute to better health. This study examined the relationship between energy efficiency investments to homes in low-income areas and mental and physical health of residents, as well as a number of psychosocial outcomes likely to be part of the complex relationship between energy efficiency measures and health outcomes. METHODS: A quasi-experimental field study with a controlled pretest-posttest design was conducted (intervention n = 364; control n = 418) to investigate the short-term health and psychosocial impacts of a domestic energy efficiency programme that took place across Wales between 2013 and 2015. Survey data were collected in the winters before and after installation of energy efficiency measures, including external wall insulation. The study used a multilevel modelling repeated measures approach to analyse the data. RESULTS: The energy efficiency programme was not associated with improvements in physical and mental health (using the SF-12v2 physical and mental health composite scales) or reductions in self-reported respiratory and asthma symptoms. However, the programme was associated with improved subjective wellbeing (B = 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.65), as well as improvements in a number of psychosocial outcomes, including increased thermal satisfaction (OR = 3.83, 95% CI 2.40 to 5.90), reduced reports of putting up with feeling cold to save heating costs (OR = 0.49, CI = 0.25 to 0.94), fewer financial difficulties (B = -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05), and reduced social isolation (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.77). CONCLUSION: The study showed that investing in energy efficiency in low-income communities does not lead to self-reported health improvements in the short term. However, investments increased subjective wellbeing and were linked to a number of psychosocial intermediaries that are conducive to better health. It is likely that better living conditions contribute to improvements in health outcomes in the longer term. Better understanding of the impacts on recipients of energy efficiency schemes, could improve targeting of future fuel poverty policies.