4.3 Article

The global burden of falls: global, regional and national estimates of morbidity and mortality from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

期刊

INJURY PREVENTION
卷 26, 期 SUPP_1, 页码 3-11

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043286

关键词

fall; epidemiology; burden of disease

资金

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1152504]
  2. MRC [MC_U147585819, MC_U147585827, G0400491] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Falls can lead to severe health loss including death. Past research has shown that falls are an important cause of death and disability worldwide. The Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) provides a comprehensive assessment of morbidity and mortality from falls. Methods Estimates for mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were produced for 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017 for all ages using the GBD 2017 framework. Distributions of the bodily injury (eg, hip fracture) were estimated using hospital records. Results Globally, the age-standardised incidence of falls was 2238 (1990-2532) per 100 000 in 2017, representing a decline of 3.7% (7.4 to 0.3) from 1990 to 2017. Age-standardised prevalence was 5186 (4622-5849) per 100 000 in 2017, representing a decline of 6.5% (7.6 to 5.4) from 1990 to 2017. Age-standardised mortality rate was 9.2 (8.5-9.8) per 100 000 which equated to 695 771 (644 927-741 720) deaths in 2017. Globally, falls resulted in 16 688 088 (15 101 897-17 636 830) YLLs, 19 252 699 (13 725 429-26 140 433) YLDs and 35 940 787 (30 185 695-42 903 289) DALYs across all ages. The most common injury sustained by fall victims is fracture of patella, tibia or fibula, or ankle. Globally, age-specific YLD rates increased with age. Conclusions This study shows that the burden of falls is substantial. Investing in further research, fall prevention strategies and access to care is critical.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据