Dataset Information

Comparisons of disease cluster patterns, prevalence and health factors in the USA, Canada, England and Ireland.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Identification of those who are most at risk of developing specific patterns of disease across different populations is required for directing public health policy. Here, we contrast prevalence and patterns of cross-national disease incidence, co-occurrence and related risk factors across population samples from the U.S., Canada, England and Ireland.

Methods

Participants (n = 62,111) were drawn from the US Health and Retirement Study (n = 10,858); the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Ageing (n = 36,647); the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (n = 7938) and The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (n = 6668). Self-reported lifetime prevalence of 10 medical conditions, predominant clusters of multimorbidity and their specific risk factors were compared across countries using latent class analysis.

Results

The U.S. had significantly higher prevalence of multimorbid disease patterns and nearly all diseases when compared to the three other countries, even after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, income, employment status, education, alcohol consumption and smoking history. For the U.S. the most at-risk group were younger on average compared to Canada, England and Ireland. Socioeconomic gradients for specific disease combinations were more pronounced for the U.S., Canada and England than they were for Ireland. The rates of obesity trends over the last 50 years align with the prevalence of eight of the 10 diseases examined. While patterns of disease clusters and the risk factors related to each of the disease clusters were similar, the probabilities of the diseases within each cluster differed across countries.

Conclusions

This information can be used to better understand the complex nature of multimorbidity and identify appropriate prevention and management strategies for treating multimorbidity across countries.

SUBMITTER: Hernandez B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442402 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesImproving detection of depression in people with diabetes is recommended. However, little is known about how different health systems compare in depression detection. We estimated and compared the (1) prevalence of depression detection in people with and without diabetes, and (2) association between diabetes and undiagnosed depression across three health systems.DesignCross-sectional analysis of three nationally representative studies: The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, the English Longitudinal Study on Ageing and the Health and Retirement Study.SettingCommunity-dwelling adults in Ireland, England and the USA.ParticipantsAdults aged ≥50 years.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was depression diagnosis. The secondary outcome was any depression. Any depression was defined by the presence of self-reported doctor-diagnosed depression or current depression symptoms on the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale. Depression diagnosis was categorised as: undiagnosed, symptomatic and diagnosed, and asymptomatic and diagnosed. We estimated age-standardised prevalence of depression diagnosis by country and diabetes status. Anyone who self-reported having ever received a doctor diagnosis of diabetes was classified as having diabetes. Among respondents with depression, we estimated the association between diabetes and undiagnosed depression by country using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsThe prevalence of depression (diagnosed and undiagnosed) was higher in people with diabetes in each country with absolute rates varying by country; undiagnosed prevalence (Ireland: diabetes 10.1% (95% CI 7.5% to 12.8%) vs no diabetes 7.5% (95% CI 6.8% to 8.2%), England: diabetes 19.3% (95% CI 16.5% to 22.2%) vs no diabetes 11.8% (95% CI 11.0% to 12.6%), USA: diabetes 7.4% (95% CI 6.4% to 8.4%) vs no diabetes 6.1% (95% CI 5.7% to 6.6%)). In the fully adjusted model, there was no clear pattern of association between diabetes status and undiagnosed depression; Ireland: OR=0.82 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.3), England: OR=1.47 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1), USA: OR=0.80 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0).ConclusionsAlthough undiagnosed depression was more prevalent among people with diabetes, the relationship between diabetes and undiagnosed depression differed by country. Targeted efforts are needed to improve depression detection among community-dwelling older adults, particularly those with diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge of geospatial pattern in comorbidities prevalence is critical to an understanding of the local health needs among people with osteoarthritis (OA). It provides valuable information for targeting optimal OA treatment and management at the local level. However, there is, at present, limited evidence about the geospatial pattern of comorbidity prevalence in Alberta, Canada.MethodsFive administrative health datasets were linked to identify OA cases and comorbidities using validated case definitions. We explored the geospatial pattern in comorbidity prevalence at two standard geographic areas levels defined by the Alberta Health Services: descriptive analysis at rural-urban continuum level; spatial analysis (global Moran's I, hot spot analysis, cluster and outlier analysis) at the local geographic area (LGA) level. We compared area-level indicators in comorbidities hotspots to those in the rest of Alberta (non-hotspots).ResultsAmong 359,638 OA cases in 2013, approximately 60% of people resided in Metro and Urban areas, compared to 2% in Rural Remote areas. All comorbidity groups exhibited statistically significant spatial autocorrelation (hypertension: Moran's I index 0.24, z score 4.61). Comorbidity hotspots, except depression, were located primarily in Rural and Rural Remote areas. Depression was more prevalent in Metro (Edmonton-Abbottsfield: 194 cases per 1000 population, 95%CI 192-195) and Urban LGAs (Lethbridge-North: 169, 95%CI 168-171) compared to Rural areas (Fox Creek: 65, 95%CI 63-68). Comorbidities hotspots included a higher percentage of First Nations or Inuit people. People with OA living in hotspots had lower socioeconomic status and less access to care compared to non-hotspots.ConclusionsThe findings highlight notable rural-urban disparities in comorbidities prevalence among people with OA in Alberta, Canada. Our study provides valuable evidence for policy and decision makers to design programs that ensure patients with OA receive optimal health management tailored to their local needs and a reduction in current OA health disparities.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To estimate obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England and compare prevalence with those working outside of the health services. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study based on data from 5?years (2008-2012) of the nationally representative Health Survey for England. SETTING:England. PARTICIPANTS:20?103 adults aged 17-65 years indicating they were economically active at the time of survey classified into four occupational groups: nurses (n=422), other healthcare professionals (n=412), unregistered care workers (n=736) and individuals employed in non-health-related occupations (n=18?533). OUTCOME MEASURE:Prevalence of obesity defined as body mass index ?30.0 with 95% CIs and weighted to reflect the population. RESULTS:Obesity prevalence was high across all occupational groups including: among nurses (25.1%, 95%?CI 20.9% to 29.4%); other healthcare professionals (14.4%,?95% CI 11.0% to 17.8%); non-health-related occupations (23.5%,?95% CI 22.9% to 24.1%); and unregistered care workers who had the highest prevalence of obesity (31.9%, 95% CI 28.4% to 35.3%). A logistic regression model adjusted for sociodemographic composition and survey year indicated that, compared with nurses, the odds of being obese were significantly lower for other healthcare professionals (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.75) and higher for unregistered care workers (aOR 1.46,?95% CI 1.11 to 1.93). There was no significant difference in obesity prevalence between nurses and people working in non-health-related occupations (aOR 0.94,?95% CI 0.74 to 1.18). CONCLUSIONS:High obesity prevalence among nurses and unregistered care workers is concerning as it increases the risks of musculoskeletal conditions and mental health conditions that are the main causes of sickness absence in health services. Further research is required to better understand the reasons for high obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England to inform interventions to support individuals to achieve and maintain a healthy weight.