Play the Pain: A Digital Strategy for Play-Oriented Research and Action

Summary Background As mortality rates decline, life expectancy increases, and populations age, non-fatal outcomes of diseases and injuries are becoming a larger component of the global burden of disease. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) provides a comprehensive assessment of prevalence, incidence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 328 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016. Methods We estimated prevalence and incidence for 328 diseases and injuries and 2982 sequelae, their non-fatal consequences. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death rates for each condition. For some causes, we used alternative modelling strategies if incidence or prevalence needed to be derived from other data. YLDs were estimated as the product of prevalence and a disability weight for all mutually exclusive sequelae, corrected for comorbidity and aggregated to cause level. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. GBD 2016 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Findings Globally, low back pain, migraine, age-related and other hearing loss, iron-deficiency anaemia, and major depressive disorder were the five leading causes of YLDs in 2016, contributing 57·6 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 40·8–75·9 million [7·2%, 6·0–8·3]), 45·1 million (29·0–62·8 million [5·6%, 4·0–7·2]), 36·3 million (25·3–50·9 million [4·5%, 3·8–5·3]), 34·7 million (23·0–49·6 million [4·3%, 3·5–5·2]), and 34·1 million (23·5–46·0 million [4·2%, 3·2–5·3]) of total YLDs, respectively. Age-standardised rates of YLDs for all causes combined decreased between 1990 and 2016 by 2·7% (95% UI 2·3–3·1). Despite mostly stagnant age-standardised rates, the absolute number of YLDs from non-communicable diseases has been growing rapidly across all SDI quintiles, partly because of population growth, but also the ageing of populations. The largest absolute increases in total numbers of YLDs globally were between the ages of 40 and 69 years. Age-standardised YLD rates for all conditions combined were 10·4% (95% UI 9·0–11·8) higher in women than in men. Iron-deficiency anaemia, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and all musculoskeletal disorders apart from gout were the main conditions contributing to higher YLD rates in women. Men had higher age-standardised rates of substance use disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancers, and all injuries apart from sexual violence. Globally, we noted much less geographical variation in disability than has been documented for premature mortality. In 2016, there was a less than two times difference in age-standardised YLD rates for all causes between the location with the lowest rate (China, 9201 YLDs per 100 000, 95% UI 6862–11943) and highest rate (Yemen, 14 774 YLDs per 100 000, 11 018–19 228). Interpretation The decrease in death rates since 1990 for most causes has not been matched by a similar decline in age-standardised YLD rates. For many large causes, YLD rates have either been stagnant or have increased for some causes, such as diabetes. As populations are ageing, and the prevalence of disabling disease generally increases steeply with age, health systems will face increasing demand for services that are generally costlier than the interventions that have led to declines in mortality in childhood or for the major causes of mortality in adults. Up-to-date information about the trends of disease and how this varies between countries is essential to plan for an adequate health-system response. Show more

Scale development and validation are critical to much of the work in the health, social, and behavioral sciences. However, the constellation of techniques required for scale development and evaluation can be onerous, jargon-filled, unfamiliar, and resource-intensive. Further, it is often not a part of graduate training. Therefore, our goal was to concisely review the process of scale development in as straightforward a manner as possible, both to facilitate the development of new, valid, and reliable scales, and to help improve existing ones. To do this, we have created a primer for best practices for scale development in measuring complex phenomena. This is not a systematic review, but rather the amalgamation of technical literature and lessons learned from our experiences spent creating or adapting a number of scales over the past several decades. We identified three phases that span nine steps. In the first phase, items are generated and the validity of their content is assessed. In the second phase, the scale is constructed. Steps in scale construction include pre-testing the questions, administering the survey, reducing the number of items, and understanding how many factors the scale captures. In the third phase, scale evaluation, the number of dimensions is tested, reliability is tested, and validity is assessed. We have also added examples of best practices to each step. In sum, this primer will equip both scientists and practitioners to understand the ontology and methodology of scale development and validation, thereby facilitating the advancement of our understanding of a range of health, social, and behavioral outcomes. Show more

Triangulation refers to the use of multiple methods or data sources in qualitative research to develop a comprehensive understanding of phenomena (Patton, 1999). Triangulation also has been viewed as a qualitative research strategy to test validity through the convergence of information from different sources. Denzin (1978) and Patton (1999) identified four types of triangulation: (a) method triangulation, (b) investigator triangulation, (c) theory triangulation, and (d) data source triangulation. The current article will present the four types of triangulation followed by a discussion of the use of focus groups (FGs) and in-depth individual (IDI) interviews as an example of data source triangulation in qualitative inquiry. Show more