紧缩政策是许多高收入国家死亡率趋势停滞不前的原因吗?系统回顾。

0 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Philip Broadbent, David Walsh, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Christine Gallagher, Ruth Dundas, Gerry McCartney
{"title":"紧缩政策是许多高收入国家死亡率趋势停滞不前的原因吗?系统回顾。","authors":"Philip Broadbent, David Walsh, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Christine Gallagher, Ruth Dundas, Gerry McCartney","doi":"10.1177/27551938241255041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article systematically reviews evidence evaluating whether macroeconomic austerity policies impact mortality, reviewing high-income country data compiled through systematic searches of nine databases and gray literature using pre-specified methods (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020226609). Eligible studies were quantitatively assessed to determine austerity's impact on mortality. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias using ROBINS-I. Synthesis without meta-analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Of 5,720 studies screened, seven were included, with harmful effects of austerity policies demonstrated in six, and no effect in one. Consistent harmful impacts of austerity were demonstrated for all-cause mortality, life expectancy, and cause-specific mortality across studies and different austerity measures. Excess mortality was higher in countries with greater exposure to austerity. Certainty of evidence was low. Risk of bias was moderate to critical. A typical austerity dose was associated with 74,090 [-40,632, 188,792] and 115,385 [26,324, 204,446] additional deaths per year. Austerity policies are consistently associated with adverse mortality outcomes, but the magnitude of this effect remains uncertain and may depend on how austerity is implemented (e.g., balance between public spending reductions or tax rises, and distributional consequences). Policymakers should be aware of potential harmful health effects of austerity policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":73479,"journal":{"name":"International journal of social determinants of health and health services","volume":" ","pages":"362-379"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437704/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Austerity Responsible for the Stalled Mortality Trends Across Many High-Income Countries? A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Philip Broadbent, David Walsh, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Christine Gallagher, Ruth Dundas, Gerry McCartney\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/27551938241255041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article systematically reviews evidence evaluating whether macroeconomic austerity policies impact mortality, reviewing high-income country data compiled through systematic searches of nine databases and gray literature using pre-specified methods (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020226609). Eligible studies were quantitatively assessed to determine austerity's impact on mortality. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias using ROBINS-I. Synthesis without meta-analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Of 5,720 studies screened, seven were included, with harmful effects of austerity policies demonstrated in six, and no effect in one. Consistent harmful impacts of austerity were demonstrated for all-cause mortality, life expectancy, and cause-specific mortality across studies and different austerity measures. Excess mortality was higher in countries with greater exposure to austerity. Certainty of evidence was low. Risk of bias was moderate to critical. A typical austerity dose was associated with 74,090 [-40,632, 188,792] and 115,385 [26,324, 204,446] additional deaths per year. Austerity policies are consistently associated with adverse mortality outcomes, but the magnitude of this effect remains uncertain and may depend on how austerity is implemented (e.g., balance between public spending reductions or tax rises, and distributional consequences). Policymakers should be aware of potential harmful health effects of austerity policies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of social determinants of health and health services\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"362-379\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437704/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of social determinants of health and health services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/27551938241255041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of social determinants of health and health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27551938241255041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文系统地回顾了评估宏观紧缩政策是否会影响死亡率的证据,采用预先指定的方法(PROSPERO 注册:CRD42020226609)对九个数据库和灰色文献进行了系统检索,回顾了高收入国家的数据。对符合条件的研究进行了定量评估,以确定紧缩政策对死亡率的影响。两名审稿人使用 ROBINS-I 独立评估研究的资格和偏倚风险。由于存在异质性,因此未进行荟萃分析。采用 GRADE 框架对证据的确定性进行评估。在筛选出的 5,720 项研究中,有 7 项被纳入,其中 6 项证明了紧缩政策的有害影响,1 项没有影响。在不同的研究和不同的紧缩措施中,紧缩政策对全因死亡率、预期寿命和特定原因死亡率的有害影响是一致的。紧缩程度越高的国家死亡率越高。证据的确定性较低。偏倚风险为中度至重度。典型的紧缩剂量与每年 74,090 [-40,632, 188,792] 和 115,385 [26,324, 204,446] 例额外死亡有关。紧缩政策一直与不利的死亡结果相关,但这种影响的程度仍不确定,可能取决于紧缩政策的实施方式(如公共开支削减或税收增加之间的平衡以及分配后果)。决策者应意识到紧缩政策对健康的潜在有害影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Austerity Responsible for the Stalled Mortality Trends Across Many High-Income Countries? A Systematic Review.

This article systematically reviews evidence evaluating whether macroeconomic austerity policies impact mortality, reviewing high-income country data compiled through systematic searches of nine databases and gray literature using pre-specified methods (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020226609). Eligible studies were quantitatively assessed to determine austerity's impact on mortality. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias using ROBINS-I. Synthesis without meta-analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Of 5,720 studies screened, seven were included, with harmful effects of austerity policies demonstrated in six, and no effect in one. Consistent harmful impacts of austerity were demonstrated for all-cause mortality, life expectancy, and cause-specific mortality across studies and different austerity measures. Excess mortality was higher in countries with greater exposure to austerity. Certainty of evidence was low. Risk of bias was moderate to critical. A typical austerity dose was associated with 74,090 [-40,632, 188,792] and 115,385 [26,324, 204,446] additional deaths per year. Austerity policies are consistently associated with adverse mortality outcomes, but the magnitude of this effect remains uncertain and may depend on how austerity is implemented (e.g., balance between public spending reductions or tax rises, and distributional consequences). Policymakers should be aware of potential harmful health effects of austerity policies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信