Search

Background: Similar to many countries, Belgium experienced a rapid increase in cancer diagnoses in the last years. Considering that a large part of cancer types could be prevented, our study aimed to estimate the annual healthcare burden of cancer per site, and to compare cost with burden of disease estimates to have a better understanding of the impact of different cancer sites in Belgium. Methods: We used nationally available data sources to estimate the healthcare expenditure. We opted for a prevalence-based approach which measures the disease attributable costs that occur concurrently for 10-year prevalent cancer cases in 2018. Average attributable costs of cancer were computed via matching of cases (patients with cancer by site) and controls (patients without cancer). Years of life lost due to disability (YLD) were used to summarize the health impact of the selected cancers. Results: The highest attributable cost in 2018 among the selected cancers was on average €15,867 per patient for bronchus and lung cancer, followed by liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, and mesothelioma. For the total cost, lung cancer was the most costly cancer site with almost €700 million spent in 2018. Lung cancer was followed by breast and colorectal cancer that costed more than €300 million each in 2018. Conclusions:In our study, the direct attributable cost of the most prevalent cancer sites in Belgium was estimated to provide useful guidance for cost containment policies. Many of these cancers could be prevented by tackling risk factors such as smoking, obesity, and environmental stressors.

System dynamics approaches are increasingly addressing the complexity of public health problems such as childhood overweight and obesity. These approaches often use system mapping methods, such as the construction of causal loop diagrams, to gain an understanding of the system of interest. However, there is limited practical guidance on how such a system understanding can inform the development of an action programme that can facilitate systems changes. The Lifestyle Innovations Based on Youth Knowledge and Experience (LIKE) programme combines system dynamics and participatory action research to improve obesity-related behaviours, including diet, physical activity, sleep and sedentary behaviour, in 10–14-year-old adolescents in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This paper illustrates how we used a previously obtained understanding of the system of obesity-related behaviours in adolescents to develop an action programme to facilitate systems changes. A team of evaluation researchers guided interdisciplinary action-groups throughout the process of identifying mechanisms, applying the Intervention Level Framework to identify leverage points and arriving at action ideas with aligning theories of change. The LIKE action programme consisted of 8 mechanisms, 9 leverage points and 14 action ideas which targeted the system’s structure and function within multiple subsystems. This illustrates the feasibility of developing actions targeting higher system levels within the confines of a research project timeframe when sufficient and dedicated effort in this process is invested. Furthermore, the system dynamics action programme presented in this study contributes towards the development and implementation of public health programmes that aim to facilitate systems changes in practice.

Background Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer is a priority for the public health agenda. A systematic assessment and benchmarking of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer across many countries and over time in Europe is not yet available. Methods Census-linked, whole-of-population cancer-specific mortality data by socioeconomic position, as measured by education level, and sex were collected, harmonized, analysed, and compared across 18 countries during 1990–2015, in adults aged 40–79. We computed absolute and relative educational inequalities; temporal trends using estimated-annual-percentage-changes; the share of cancer mortality linked to educational inequalities. Findings Everywhere in Europe, lower-educated individuals have higher mortality rates for nearly all cancer-types relative to their more highly-educated counterparts, particularly for tobacco/infection-related cancers [relative risk of lung cancer mortality for lower- versus higher-educated = 2.4 (95% confidence intervals: 2.1–2.8) among men; = 1.8 (95% confidence intervals: 1.5–2.1) among women]. However, the magnitude of inequalities varies greatly by country and over time, predominantly due to differences in cancer mortality among lower-educated groups, as for many cancer-types higher-educated have more similar (and lower) rates, irrespective of the country. Inequalities were generally greater in Baltic/Central/East-Europe and smaller in South-Europe, although among women large and rising inequalities were found in North–Europe (relative risk of all cancer mortality for lower- versus higher-educated ≥1.4 in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the England/Wales). Among men, rate differences (per 100,000 person-years) in total-cancer mortality for lower-vs-higher-educated groups ranged from 110 (Sweden) to 559 (Czech Republic); among women from approximately null (Slovenia, Italy, Spain) to 176 (Denmark). Lung cancer was the largest contributor to inequalities in total-cancer mortality (bet

BACKGROUND: Studies of period changes in educational inequalities in mortality have shown important changes over time. It is unknown whether a birth cohort perspective paints the same picture. We compared changes in inequalities in mortality between a period and cohort perspective and explored mortality trends among low-educated and high-educated birth cohorts. DATA AND METHODS: In 14 European countries, we collected and harmonised all-cause and cause-specific mortality data by education for adults aged 30-79 years in the period 1971-2015. Data reordered by birth cohort cover persons born between 1902 and 1976. Using direct standardisation, we calculated comparative mortality figures and resulting absolute and relative inequalities in mortality between low educated and high educated by birth cohort, sex and period. RESULTS: Using a period perspective, absolute educational inequalities in mortality were generally stable or declining, and relative inequalities were mostly increasing. Using a cohort perspective, both absolute and relative inequalities increased in recent birth cohorts in several countries, especially among women. Mortality generally decreased across successive birth cohorts among the high educated, driven by mortality decreases from all causes, with the strongest reductions for cardiovascular disease mortality. Among the low educated, mortality stabilised or increased in cohorts born since the 1930s in particular for mortality from cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and alcohol-related causes. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in mortality inequalities by birth cohort are less favourable than by calendar period. In many European countries, trends among more recently born generations are worrying. If current trends among younger birth cohorts persist, educational inequalities in mortality may further widen.

BACKGROUND: Studies of period changes in educational inequalities in mortality have shown important changes over time. It is unknown whether a birth cohort perspective paints the same picture. We compared changes in inequalities in mortality between a period and cohort perspective and explored mortality trends among low-educated and high-educated birth cohorts. DATA AND METHODS: In 14 European countries, we collected and harmonised all-cause and cause-specific mortality data by education for adults aged 30-79 years in the period 1971-2015. Data reordered by birth cohort cover persons born between 1902 and 1976. Using direct standardisation, we calculated comparative mortality figures and resulting absolute and relative inequalities in mortality between low educated and high educated by birth cohort, sex and period. RESULTS: Using a period perspective, absolute educational inequalities in mortality were generally stable or declining, and relative inequalities were mostly increasing. Using a cohort perspective, both absolute and relative inequalities increased in recent birth cohorts in several countries, especially among women. Mortality generally decreased across successive birth cohorts among the high educated, driven by mortality decreases from all causes, with the strongest reductions for cardiovascular disease mortality. Among the low educated, mortality stabilised or increased in cohorts born since the 1930s in particular for mortality from cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and alcohol-related causes. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in mortality inequalities by birth cohort are less favourable than by calendar period. In many European countries, trends among more recently born generations are worrying. If current trends among younger birth cohorts persist, educational inequalities in mortality may further widen.

Background: Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer is a priority for the public health agenda. A systematic assessment and benchmarking of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer across many countries and over time in Europe is not yet available. Methods: Census-linked, whole-of-population cancer-specific mortality data by socioeconomic position, as measured by education level, and sex were collected, harmonized, analysed, and compared across 18 countries during 1990–2015, in adults aged 40–79. We computed absolute and relative educational inequalities; temporal trends using estimated-annual-percentage-changes; the share of cancer mortality linked to educational inequalities. Findings: Everywhere in Europe, lower-educated individuals have higher mortality rates for nearly all cancer-types relative to their more highly-educated counterparts, particularly for tobacco/infection-related cancers [relative risk of lung cancer mortality for lower- versus higher-educated = 2.4 (95% confidence intervals: 2.1–2.8) among men; = 1.8 (95% confidence intervals: 1.5–2.1) among women]. However, the magnitude of inequalities varies greatly by country and over time, predominantly due to differences in cancer mortality among lower-educated groups, as for many cancer-types higher-educated have more similar (and lower) rates, irrespective of the country. Inequalities were generally greater in Baltic/Central/East-Europe and smaller in South-Europe, although among women large and rising inequalities were found in North–Europe (relative risk of all cancer mortality for lower- versus higher-educated ≥1.4 in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the England/Wales). Among men, rate differences (per 100,000 person-years) in total-cancer mortality for lower-vs-higher-educated groups ranged from 110 (Sweden) to 559 (Czech Republic); among women from approximately null (Slovenia, Italy, Spain) to 176 (Denmark). Lung cancer was the largest contributor to inequalities in total-cancer mortalit

Aims: Japan is known as a country with low self-rated health despite high life expectancy. We compared socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health in Japan with those in 32 European countries and the US using nationally representative samples. Methods: We analysed individual data from the Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions (Japan), the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (US) in 2016. We used ordered logistic regression models with four ordinal categories of self-rated health as an outcome, and educational level or occupational class as independent variables, controlling for age. Results: In Japan, about half the population perceived their health as ‘fair’, which was much higher than in Europe (≈20–40%). The odds ratios of lower self-rated health among less educated men compared with more educated were 1.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61–1.85) in Japan, and ranged from 1.67 to 4.74 in Europe (pooled; 2.10 (95% CI 2.01–2.20)), and 6.65 (95% CI 6.22–7.12) in the US. The odds ratios of lower self-rated health among less educated women were 1.79 (95% CI 1.65–1.95) in Japan, and ranged from 1.89 to 5.30 in Europe (pooled; 2.43 (95% CI 2.33–2.54)), and 8.82 (95% CI 8.29–9.38) in the US. Socioeconomic inequalities were large when self-rated health was low for European countries, but Japan and the US did not follow the pattern. Conclusions: Japan has similar socioeconomic gradient patterns to European countries for self-rated health, and our findings revealed smaller socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health in Japan compared with those in western countries.

Socioeconomic inequalities in disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) exist across all European countries, yet the driving determinants of these differences are not completely known. We calculated the impact on educational inequalities in DFLE of equalizing the distribution of eight risk factors for mortality and disability using register-based mortality data and survey data from 15 European countries for individuals between 35 and 80 years old. From the selected risk factors, the ones that contribute the most to the educational inequalities in DFLE are low income, high body-weight, smoking (for men), and manual occupation of the father. Potentially large reductions in inequalities can be achieved in Eastern European countries, where educational inequalities in DFLE are also the largest.