Background Rigorous analysis of levels and trends in exposure to leading risk factors and quantification of their effect on human health are important to identify where public health is making progress and in which cases current efforts are inadequate. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a standardised and comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of risk factor exposure, relative risk, and attributable burden of disease. MethodsGBD 2019 estimated attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 87 risk factors and combinations of risk factors, at the global level, regionally, and for 204 countries and territories. GBD uses a hierarchical list of risk factors so that specific risk factors (eg, sodium intake), and related aggregates (eg, diet quality), are both evaluated. This method has six analytical steps. (1) We included 560 risk-outcome pairs that met criteria for convincing or probable evidence on the basis of research studies. 12 risk-outcome pairs included in GBD 2017 no longer met inclusion criteria and 47 risk-outcome pairs for risks already included in GBD 2017 were added based on new evidence. (2) Relative risks were estimated as a function of exposure based on published systematic reviews, 81 systematic reviews done for GBD 2019, and meta-regression. (3) Levels of exposure in each age-sex-location-year included in the study were estimated based on all available data sources using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression method, or alternative methods. (4) We determined, from published trials or cohort studies, the level of exposure associated with minimum risk, called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level. (5) Attributable deaths, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs were computed by multiplying population attributable fractions (PAFs) by the relevant outcome quantity for each agesex-location-year. (6) PAFs and attributable burden for combinations of risk factors were estimated taking into account mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors. Across all six analytical steps, 30 652 distinct data sources were used in the analysis. Uncertainty in each step of the analysis was propagated into the final estimates of attributable burden. Exposure levels for dichotomous, polytomous, and continuous risk factors were summarised with use of the summary exposure value to facilitate comparisons over time, across location, and across risks. Because the entire time series from 1990 to 2019 has been re-estimated with use of consistent data and methods, these results supersede previously published GBD estimates of attributable burden. Findings The largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure. Global declines also occurred for tobac...

Objective To determine the effectiveness of two online behavioural interventions, one for parents and carers and one for young people, to support eczema self-management. Design Two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked, randomised controlled trials. Setting 98 general practices in England. Participants Parents and carers of children (0-12 years) with eczema (trial 1) and young people (13-25 years) with eczema (trial 2), excluding people with inactive or very mild eczema (≤5 on POEM, the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure). Interventions Participants were randomised (1:1) using online software to receive usual eczema care or an online ( www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk ) behavioural intervention for eczema plus usual care. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was eczema symptoms rated using POEM (range 0-28, with 28 being very severe) every four weeks over 24 weeks. Outcomes were reported by parents or carers for children and by self-report for young people. Secondary outcomes included POEM score every four weeks over 52 weeks, quality of life, eczema control, itch intensity (young people only), patient enablement, treatment use, perceived barriers to treatment use, and intervention use. Analyses were carried out separately for the two trials and according to intention-to-treat principles. Results 340 parents or carers of children (169 usual care; 171 intervention) and 337 young people (169 usual care; 168 intervention) were randomised. The mean baseline POEM score was 12.8 (standard deviation 5.3) for parents and carers and 15.2 (5.4) for young people. Three young people withdrew from follow-up but did not withdraw their data. All randomised participants were included in the analyses. At 24 weeks, follow-up rates were 91.5% (311/340) for parents or carers and 90.2% (304/337) for young people. After controlling for baseline eczema severity and confounders, compared with usual care groups over 24 weeks, eczema severity improved in the intervention groups: mean difference in POEM score −1.5 (95% confidence interval −2.5 to −0.6; P=0.002) for parents or carers and −1.9 (−3.0 to −0.8; P<0.001) for young people. The number needed to treat to achieve a 2.5 difference in POEM score at 24 weeks was 6 in both trials. Improvements were sustained to 52 weeks in both trials. Enablement showed a statistically significant difference favouring the intervention group in both trials: adjusted mean difference at 24 weeks −0.7 (95% confidence interval −1.0 to −0.4) for parents or carers and −0.9 (−1.3 to −0.6) for young people. No harms were identified in either group. Conclusions Two online interventions for self-management of eczema aimed at parents or carers of children with eczema and at young people with eczema provide a useful, sustained benefit in managing eczema severity in children and young people when offered in addition to usual eczema care. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN79282252 .

Background: Concerns have been raised that the response to the UK COVID-19 pandemic may have worsened physical and mental health, and reduced use of health services. However, the scale of the problem is unquantified, impeding development of effective mitigations. We asked what has happened to general practice contacts for acute physical and mental health outcomes during the pandemic? Methods: Using electronic health records from the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (2017-2020), we calculated weekly primary care contacts for selected acute physical and mental health conditions (including: anxiety, depression, acute alcohol-related events, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] exacerbations, cardiovascular and diabetic emergencies). We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to formally quantify changes in conditions after the introduction of population-wide restrictions ('lockdown') compared to the period prior to their introduction in March 2020. Findings: The overall population included 9,863,903 individuals on 1st January 2017. Primary care contacts for all conditions dropped dramatically after introduction of population-wide restrictions. By July 2020, except for unstable angina and acute alcohol-related events, contacts for all conditions had not recovered to pre-lockdown levels. The largest reductions were for contacts for: diabetic emergencies (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25-0.50), depression (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.52-0.53), and self-harm (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54-0.58). Interpretation: There were substantial reductions in primary care contacts for acute physical and mental conditions with restrictions, with limited recovery by July 2020. It is likely that much of the deficit in care represents unmet need, with implications for subsequent morbidity and premature mortality. The conditions we studied are sufficiently severe that any unmet need will have substantial ramifications for the people experiencing the conditions and healthcare provision. Maintaining access must be a key priority in future public health planning (including further restrictions). Funding: Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (SML), Health Data Research UK.

BACKGROUND:We examined fidelity and feasibility of implementation of COVID-19 preventive measures in schools, and explored associations between adherence to these measures and staff well-being, to inform policy on sustainable implementation and staff wellbeing. METHODS:Surveys were conducted across 128 schools in England with 107 headteachers and 2698 staff-members with reference to autumn term 2020, examining school-level implementation of preventive measures, adherence, and teacher burnout (response rates for headteacher and staff surveys were 84% and 59%, respectively). RESULTS:The median number of measures implemented in primary and secondary schools was 33 (range 23-41), and 32 (range 22-40), respectively; most measures presented challenges. No differences were found regarding number of measures implemented by school-level socio-economic disadvantage. High adherence was reported for staff wearing face-coverings, staff regularly washing their hands, (secondary only) desks facing forwards, and (primary only) increased cleaning of surfaces and student hand-washing. Adherence to most measures was reported as higher in primary than secondary schools. Over half of school leaders and 42% (517/1234) of other teaching staff suffered from high emotional exhaustion. Higher teacher-reported school-wide adherence with measures was consistently associated with lower burnout for leaders and other teaching staff. CONCLUSIONS:Findings indicate a tremendous effort in implementing preventive measures and an urgent need to support investments in improving teacher wellbeing.