<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/feeds/mostaccessed/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Population Health Metrics - Most accessed articles</title>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com</link>
        <description>The most accessed research articles published by Population Health Metrics</description>
        <dc:date>2010-03-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/7/1/16" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/8/1/3" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/8/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/8/1/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/7/1/18" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/1/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/3/1/8" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/6/1/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/6/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/4/1/14" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/7/1/16">
        <title>Diabetes prevalence and diagnosis in US states: analysis of health surveys</title>
        <description>Background:
Current US surveillance data provide estimates of diabetes using laboratory tests at the national level as well as self-reported data at the state level. Self-reported diabetes prevalence may be biased because respondents may not be aware of their risk status. Our objective was to estimate the prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes by state.
Methods:
We estimated undiagnosed diabetes prevalence as a function of a set of health system and sociodemographic variables using a logistic regression in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2006). We applied this relationship to identical variables from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2003-2007) to estimate state-level prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes by age group and sex. We assumed that those who report being diagnosed with diabetes in both surveys are truly diabetic.
Results:
The prevalence of diabetes in the U.S. was 13.7% among men and 11.7% among women &#8805; 30 years. Age-standardized diabetes prevalence was highest in Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia (15.8 to 16.6% for men and 12.4 to 14.8% for women). Vermont, Minnesota, Montana, and Colorado had the lowest prevalence (11.0 to 12.2% for men and 7.3 to 8.4% for women). Men in all states had higher diabetes prevalence than women. The absolute prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes, as a percent of total population, was highest in New Mexico, Texas, Florida, and California (3.5 to 3.7 percentage points) and lowest in Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Alaska, Vermont, Utah, Washington, and Hawaii (2.1 to 3 percentage points). Among those with no established diabetes diagnosis, being obese, being Hispanic, not having insurance and being &#8805; 60 years old were significantly associated with a higher risk of having undiagnosed diabetes.
Conclusion:
Diabetes prevalence is highest in the Southern and Appalachian states and lowest in the Midwest and the Northeast. Better diabetes diagnosis is needed in a number of states.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/7/1/16</link>
                <dc:creator>Goodarz Danaei</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ari Friedman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Shefali Oza</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christopher Murray</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Majid Ezzati</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2009, 7:16</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-09-25T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-7-16</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>16</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-09-25T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/8/1/3">
        <title>Statistical modeling of volume of alcohol exposure for epidemiological studies of population health: 
the US example
</title>
        <description>Background:
Alcohol consumption is a major risk factor in the global burden of disease, with overall volume of exposure as the principal underlying dimension. Two main sources of data on volume of alcohol exposure are available: surveys and per capita consumption derived from routine statistics such as taxation. As both sources have significant problems, this paper presents an approach that triangulates information from both sources into disaggregated estimates in line with the overall level of per capita consumption.
Methods:
A modeling approach was applied to the US using data from a large and representative survey, the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Different distributions (log-normal, gamma, Weibull) were used to model consumption among drinkers in subgroups defined by sex, age, and ethnicity. The gamma distribution was used to shift the fitted distributions in line with the overall volume as derived from per capita estimates. Implications for alcohol-attributable fractions were presented, using liver cirrhosis as an example.
Results:
The triangulation of survey data with aggregated per capita consumption data proved feasible and allowed for modeling of alcohol exposure disaggregated by sex, age, and ethnicity. These models can be used in combination with risk relations for burden of disease calculations. Sensitivity analyses showed that the gamma distribution chosen yielded very similar results in terms of fit and alcohol-attributable mortality as the other tested distributions.
Conclusions:
Modeling alcohol consumption via the gamma distribution was feasible. To further refine this approach, research should focus on the main assumptions underlying the approach to explore differences between volume estimates derived from surveys and per capita consumption figures.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/8/1/3</link>
                <dc:creator>Jurgen Rehm</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tara Kehoe</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gerrit Gmel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Fred Stinson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bridget Grant</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gerhard Gmel</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2010, 8:3</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-03-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-8-3</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-03-04T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/8/1/1">
        <title>The Summary Index of Malaria Surveillance (SIMS): a stable index of malaria within India</title>
        <description>Background:
Malaria in India has been difficult to measure. Mortality and morbidity are not comprehensively reported, impeding efforts to track changes in disease burden.  However, a set of blood measures has been collected regularly by the National Malaria Control Program in most districts since 1958.
Methods:
Here, we use principal components analysis to combine these measures into a single index, the Summary Index of Malaria Surveillance (SIMS), and then test its temporal and geographic stability using subsets of the data.
Results:
The SIMS correlates positively with all its individual components and with external measures of mortality and morbidity. It is highly consistent and stable over time (1995-2005) and regions of India. It includes measures of both vivax and falciparum malaria, with vivax dominant at lower transmission levels and falciparum dominant at higher transmission levels, perhaps due to ecological specialization of the species.
Conclusions:
This measure should provide a useful tool for researchers looking to summarize geographic or temporal trends in malaria in India, and can be readily applied by administrators with no mathematical or scientific background. We include a spreadsheet that allows simple calculation of the index for researchers and local administrators.  Similar principles are likely applicable worldwide, though further validation is needed before using the SIMS outside India.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/8/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Alan Cohen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Neeraj Dhingra</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Raju Jotkar</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Rodriguez</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Vinod Sharma</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Prabhat Jha</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2010, 8:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-8-1</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-11T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/8/1/2">
        <title>Using breath carbon monoxide to validate self-reported tobacco smoking in remote Australian Indigenous communities</title>
        <description>Background:
This paper examines the specificity and sensitivity of a breath carbon monoxide (BCO) test and optimum BCO cutoff level for validating self-reported tobacco smoking in Indigenous Australians in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory (NT).
Methods:
In a sample of 400 people (&#8805;16 years) interviewed about tobacco use in three communities, both self-reported smoking and BCO data were recorded for 309 study participants. Of these, 249 reported smoking tobacco within the preceding 24 hours, and 60 reported they had never smoked or had not smoked tobacco for &#8805;6 months. The sample was opportunistically recruited using quotas to reflect age and gender balances in the communities where the combined Indigenous populations comprised 1,104 males and 1,215 females (&#8805;16 years). Local Indigenous research workers assisted researchers in interviewing participants and facilitating BCO tests using a portable hand-held analyzer.
Results:
A BCO cutoff of &#8805;7 parts per million (ppm) provided good agreement between self-report and BCO (96.0% sensitivity, 93.3% specificity). An alternative cutoff of &#8805;5 ppm increased sensitivity from 96.0% to 99.6% with no change in specificity (93.3%). With data for two self-reported nonsmokers who also reported that they smoked cannabis removed from the analysis, specificity increased to 96.6%.
Conclusion:
In these disadvantaged Indigenous populations, where data describing smoking are few, testing for BCO provides a practical, noninvasive, and immediate method to validate self-reported smoking. In further studies of tobacco smoking in these populations, cannabis use should be considered where self-reported nonsmokers show high BCO.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/8/1/2</link>
                <dc:creator>David MacLaren</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Katherine Conigrave</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jan Robertson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rowena Ivers</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sandra Eades</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alan Clough</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2010, 8:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-02-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-8-2</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-02-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/7/1/18">
        <title>Further validation of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a US adult population sample</title>
        <description>Background:
The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) was developed in 1995. Since then, it has been widely used in cancer research and cancer-related illnesses but has never been validated in fatiguing illnesses or in a large US population-selected sample. In this study, we sought to examine the reliability and validity of the MFI-20 in the population of the state of Georgia, USA. Further, we assessed whether the MFI-20 could serve as a complementary diagnostic tool in chronically fatigued and unwell populations.
Methods:
The data derive from a cross-sectional population-based study investigating the prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in Georgia. The study sample was comprised of three diagnostic groups: CFS-like (292), chronically unwell (269), and well (222). Participants completed the MFI-20 along with several other measures of psychosocial functioning, including the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), and the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). We assessed the five MFI-20 subscales using several criteria: inter-item correlations, corrected item-total correlations, internal consistency reliability (Cronbach&apos;s alpha coefficients), construct validity, discriminant (known-group) validity, floor/ceiling effects, and convergent validity through correlations with the SF-36, SDS, and STAI instruments.
Results:
Averaged inter-item correlations ranged from 0.38 to 0.61, indicating no item redundancy. Corrected item-total correlations for all MFI-20 subscales were greater than 0.30, and Cronbach&apos;s alpha coefficients achieved an acceptable level of 0.70. No significant floor/ceiling effect was observed. Factor analysis demonstrated factorial complexity. The MFI-20 also distinguished clearly between three diagnostic groups on all subscales. Furthermore, correlations with depression (SDS), anxiety (STAI), and functional impairment (SF-36) demonstrated strong convergent validity.
Conclusions:
This study provides support for the MFI-20 as a valuable tool when used in chronically unwell and well populations. It also suggests that the MFI-20 could serve as a complementary diagnostic tool in fatiguing illnesses, such as CFS.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/7/1/18</link>
                <dc:creator>Jin-Mann Lin</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Dana Brimmer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Elizabeth Maloney</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ernestina Nyarko</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rhonda BeLue</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>William Reeves</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2009, 7:18</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-15T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-7-18</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>18</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-15T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/1/1/1">
        <title>Comparative quantification of health risks: Conceptual framework and methodological issues</title>
        <description>Reliable and comparable analysis of risks to health is key for preventing disease and injury. Causal attribution of morbidity and mortality to risk factors has traditionally been conducted in the context of methodological traditions of individual risk factors, often in a limited number of settings, restricting comparability.In this paper, we discuss the conceptual and methodological issues for quantifying the population health effects of individual or groups of risk factors in various levels of causality using knowledge from different scientific disciplines. The issues include: comparing the burden of disease due to the observed exposure distribution in a population with the burden from a hypothetical distribution or series of distributions, rather than a single reference level such as non-exposed; considering the multiple stages in the causal network of interactions among risk factor(s) and disease outcome to allow making inferences about some combinations of risk factors for which epidemiological studies have not been conducted, including the joint effects of multiple risk factors; calculating the health loss due to risk factor(s) as a time-indexed &quot;stream&quot; of disease burden due to a time-indexed &quot;stream&quot; of exposure, including consideration of discounting; and the sources of uncertainty.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/1/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Christopher Murray</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Majid Ezzati</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alan Lopez</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anthony Rodgers</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stephen Vander Hoorn</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2003, 1:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2003-04-14T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-1-1</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>1</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2003-04-14T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/3/1/8">
        <title>Psychometric properties of the CDC Symptom Inventory for assessment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome</title>
        <description>ObjectivesValidated or standardized self-report questionnaires used in research studies and clinical evaluation of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) generally focus on the assessment of fatigue. There are relatively few published questionnaires that evaluate case defining and other accompanying symptoms in CFS. This paper introduces the self-report CDC CFS Symptom Inventory and analyzes its psychometric properties.
Methods:
One hundred sixty-four subjects (with CFS, other fatiguing illnesses and non fatigued controls) identified from the general population of Wichita, Kansas were enrolled. Evaluation included a physical examination, a standardized psychiatric interview, three previously validated self-report questionnaires measuring fatigue and illness impact (Medical Outcomes Survey Short-Form-36 [MOS SF-36], Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory [MFI], Chalder Fatigue Scale), and the CDC CFS Symptom Inventory. Based on theoretical assumptions and statistical analyses, we developed several different Symptom Inventory scores and evaluated them on their ability to differentiate between participants with CFS and non-fatigued controls.
Results:
The Symptom Inventory had good internal consistency and excellent convergent validity. A Total score (all symptoms), Case Definition score (CFS case defining symptoms) and Short Form score (6 symptoms with minimal correlation) differentiated CFS cases from controls. Furthermore, both the Case Definition and Short Form scores distinguished people with CFS from fatigued subjects who did not meet criteria for CFS.
Conclusion:
The Symptom Inventory appears to be a reliable and valid instrument to assess symptoms that accompany CFS. It is a positive addition to existing instruments measuring fatigue because it allows other dimensions of the illness to be assessed. Further research is needed to confirm and replicate the current findings in a normative population.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/3/1/8</link>
                <dc:creator>Dieter Wagner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rosane Nisenbaum</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christine Heim</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>James Jones</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Elizabeth Unger</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>William Reeves</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2005, 3:8</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2005-07-22T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-3-8</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>8</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2005-07-22T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/6/1/2">
        <title>Population survey sampling methods in a rural African setting: measuring mortality</title>
        <description>Background:
Population-based sample surveys and sentinel surveillance methods are commonly used as substitutes for more widespread health and demographic monitoring and intervention studies in resource-poor settings. Such methods have been criticised as only being worthwhile if the results can be extrapolated to the surrounding 100-fold population. With an emphasis on measuring mortality, this study explores the extent to which choice of sampling method affects the representativeness of 1% sample data in relation to various demographic and health parameters in a rural, developing-country setting.
Methods:
Data from a large community based census and health survey conducted in rural Burkina Faso were used as a basis for modelling. Twenty 1% samples incorporating a range of health and demographic parameters were drawn at random from the overall dataset for each of seven different sampling procedures at two different levels of local administrative units. Each sample was compared with the overall &apos;gold standard&apos; survey results, thus enabling comparisons between the different sampling procedures.
Results:
All sampling methods and parameters tested performed reasonably well in representing the overall population. Nevertheless, a degree of variation could be observed both between sampling approaches and between different parameters, relating to their overall distribution in the total population.
Conclusion:
Sample surveys are able to provide useful demographic and health profiles of local populations. However, various parameters being measured and their distribution within the sampling unit of interest may not all be best represented by a particular sampling method. It is likely therefore that compromises may have to be made in choosing a sampling strategy, with costs, logistics the intended use of the data being important considerations.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/6/1/2</link>
                <dc:creator>Edward Fottrell</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peter Byass</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2008, 6:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2008-05-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-6-2</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2008-05-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/6/1/1">
        <title>The burden of disease profile of residents of Nairobi&apos;s slums: Results from a Demographic Surveillance System</title>
        <description>Background:
With increasing urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa and poor economic performance, the growth of slums is unavoidable. About 71% of urban residents in Kenya live in slums. Slums are characteristically unplanned, underserved by social services, and their residents are largely underemployed and poor. Recent research shows that the urban poor fare worse than their rural counterparts on most health indicators, yet much about the health of the urban poor remains unknown. This study aims to quantify the burden of mortality of the residents in two Nairobi slums, using a Burden of Disease approach and data generated from a Demographic Surveillance System.
Methods:
Data from the Nairobi Urban Health and Demographic Surveillance System (NUHDSS) collected between January 2003 and December 2005 were analysed. Core demographic events in the NUHDSS including deaths are updated three times a year; cause of death is ascertained by verbal autopsy and cause of death is assigned according to the ICD 10 classification. Years of Life Lost due to premature mortality (YLL) were calculated by multiplying deaths in each subcategory of sex, age group and cause of death, by the Global Burden of Disease standard life expectancy at that age.
Results:
The overall mortality burden per capita was 205 YLL/1,000 person years. Children under the age of five years had more than four times the mortality burden of the rest of the population, mostly due to pneumonia and diarrhoeal diseases. Among the population aged five years and above, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis accounted for about 50% of the mortality burden.
Conclusion:
Slum residents in Nairobi have a high mortality burden from preventable and treatable conditions. It is necessary to focus on these vulnerable populations since their health outcomes are comparable to or even worse than the health outcomes of rural dwellers who are often the focus of most interventions.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/6/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Catherine Kyobutungi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Abdhalah Kasiira Ziraba</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alex Ezeh</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Yazoume Ye</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2008, 6:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2008-03-10T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-6-1</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2008-03-10T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/4/1/14">
        <title>Estimating health-adjusted life expectancy conditional on risk factors: results for smoking and obesity</title>
        <description>Background:
Smoking and obesity are risk factors causing a large burden of disease. To help formulate and prioritize among smoking and obesity prevention activities, estimations of health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE) for cohorts that differ solely in their lifestyle (e.g. smoking vs. non smoking) can provide valuable information. Furthermore, in combination with estimates of life expectancy (LE), it can be tested whether prevention of obesity and smoking results in compression of morbidity.
Methods:
Using a dynamic population model that calculates the incidence of chronic disease conditional on epidemiological risk factors, we estimated LE and HALE at age 20 for a cohort of smokers with a normal weight (BMI &lt; 25), a cohort of non-smoking obese people (BMI&gt;30) and a cohort of &apos;healthy living&apos; people (i.e. non smoking with a BMI &lt; 25). Health state valuations for the different cohorts were calculated using the estimated disease prevalence rates in combination with data from the Dutch Burden of Disease study. Health state valuations are multiplied with life years to estimate HALE. Absolute compression of morbidity is defined as a reduction in unhealthy life expectancy (LE-HALE) and relative compression as a reduction in the proportion of life lived in good health (LE-HALE)/LE.
Results:
Estimates of HALE are highest for a &apos;healthy living&apos; cohort (54.8 years for men and 55.4 years for women at age 20). Differences in HALE compared to &apos;healthy living&apos; men at age 20 are 7.8 and 4.6 for respectively smoking and obese men. Differences in HALE compared to &apos;healthy living&apos; women at age 20 are 6.0 and 4.5 for respectively smoking and obese women. Unhealthy life expectancy is about equal for all cohorts, meaning that successful prevention would not result in absolute compression of morbidity. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that although estimates of LE and HALE are sensitive to changes in disease epidemiology, differences in LE and HALE between the different cohorts are fairly robust. In most cases, elimination of smoking or obesity does not result in absolute compression of morbidity but slightly increases the part of life lived in good health.
Conclusion:
Differences in HALE between smoking, obese and &apos;healthy living&apos; cohorts are substantial and similar to differences in LE. However, our results do not indicate that substantial compression of morbidity is to be expected as a result of successful smoking or obesity prevention.</description>
        <link>http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/4/1/14</link>
                <dc:creator>Pieter van Baal</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rudolf Hoogenveen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>G Ardine de Wit</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Hendriek Boshuizen</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Population Health Metrics 2006, 4:14</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2006-11-03T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1478-7954-4-14</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Population Health Metrics</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1478-7954</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>4</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>14</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2006-11-03T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
