Talk:Global Burden of Disease Study

Question
is it 107 or 109 diseases?
 * We're now up to lots more than that. Biosthmors (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the dates
The dates seem to be all over the place for the initiation of this project and its work (1990, 1992, 1993??). There are also issues relating to the choice of tenses employed i.e. is the project ongoing or has it finished? Jimjamjak 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lancet
I assume the Lancet publication I added was the study but perhaps that was an invalid assumption. Feel free to fix it if I messed up. Biosthmors (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Results section
For those watching this page:

The new Global burden of disease report is just published and I think the Global_burden_of_disease section of this page is wrong. It refers to the 2013 report, which would be the one with results to 2010, not 2013. Given that the last edit of this page was before the new report was published (June 2015) which covers the period to 2013, I don't think this can be correct. The report just published in 2015 is also not yet referenced. I think this may call into question the accuracy of the Global_burden_of_disease section and suggest that this needs to be checked and if necessary corrected. Information about the 2015 report also needs to be added. JMWt (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction, the 2013 values were from preliminary results released in 2014. The problem was a lack of ref, now added.  The more substantive results were published in 2015, these still need to be added to the section. JMWt (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

History


This study is disproportionately influential on policy making for what it is. It is a great study but it appears everywhere, and the paper itself needs interpretation. This history is from one of the contributors. Already this history is 15 years old. If there is more history, interviews, or journalism on the study itself then someone please share.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  00:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 article


New book just out! This chapter is relevant to this Wikipedia article.



 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Flagging citation that is gated content
I found a gated citation. I'm new so not sure if this is in-line with Wiki citation protocol or not? Citation #3 requires you to log into the IHME website in order to access content. Though the content is not behind a paywall, it is still gated in that you need to have an account or decide to create an account and share your data with IHME. In other words, it is not readily accessible to Wiki visitors. If this is indeed problematic then I am happy to help find an alternative one.

Citation in question is currently listed as #3 on the page: http://www.healthdata.org/announcement/institute-health-metrics-and-evaluation-and-world-health-organization-sign-new

Thanks for the advice! --Whiskiz (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Any published source is acceptible, though sources that are in English, no-cost, and no-registration are preferred if they are otherwise equivalent. -- Beland (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forgot to mention that it's helpful to readers to mark the status of registration-only and subscription-only links; see Template:Cite web.

What's an overview article to integrate new GBD results?
This article is missing some studies. What's an article where new results from GBD studies could get neatly integrated and if such doesn't exist what would be the best approach here? Thoughts?

In 2022 in science this is featured (not yet included here anywhere else):

"20 August – A GBD systematic analysis reports the (non)progress on cancer and its causes during the 2010-19 decade, with ~44% of all cancer deaths in 2019 – or ~4.5 M deaths or ~105 million lost DALYs – due to known clearly preventable risk factors (contributions), led by smoking, alcohol use and high BMI."

That study would get integrate in that article. Maybe something roughly like Health and deaths in the 2020s or 2020s or Global issues in the 2020s? The page would be something like a dashboard where results from various systematic progress & issue monitoring publications would get integrated, such as List of causes of death by rate for some year/period (and associated recent developments).

I tried adding it to 2022 where I think info on the most notable such global issues should be contained (albeit this one in specific is not a clear case): 2022 – section "Global goals and reports".

What are your thoughts on all of this? If it should be added to the GBDS article, please add info on it.

Prototyperspective (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think summarizing this in a single article is the natural fit. To me, a better fit is
 * citing this in every Wikipedia article about health in a region, Health in India, Neglected tropical diseases in India
 * citing this in every Wikipedia article presenting epidemiology of disease, Respiratory_syncytial_virus, Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS
 * GBDS is one of those high-power, general interest research papers of broad relevance to anyone collecting general reference information. I think this paper could be continuously cited in lots of Wikipedia articles in a way comparable to the climate data research described in The Most-Cited Authors on Wikipedia Had No Idea.
 * Here is me talking on video with a research about collab with Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR9S0M_GrlQ
 * Organizations sometimes have zero interest in sharing their information in Wikipedia; more commonly, they actively discourage this. So far as I can tell, IHME as the organization which presents this research is somewhere in that range of interest. I tried to visit them in person last time I was in Seattle or by video otherwise. They were not really keen. I think their major sponsor, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, might be more interested in getting the content out, but connecting them to Wikipedia is a challenge also even though in my view they fund a lot of research publication but have a missed opportunity in Wikipedia to actually get people to read and use it.
 * I am here for ideas but not sure how to get the knowledge out of this research into Wikipedia.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  19:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting and useful insights! Gonna watch your video later. I think it would be a good thing to add this to articles such as as those about health per region but I still do think there could and should be an article other than only List of causes of death by rate where info on progress on diseases and other global challenges is or can be integrated:
 * It would best if such would mostly consist of charts, showing the changes during a decade for example (overall plus notable special changes like unique trend reversals or slowdowns). The latter special changes could also be part of text-form content, where the section in a structured way informs about notable accelerations, slowdowns, breakthroughs and statistical milestones in various challenges during the period (in this case it's more or less only continuation of nonprogress albeit such would well be worth a brief note as well).
 * Moreover, it's easier to add it elsewhere if it's aggregated and/or first edited/revised at some central hub-like / overview-type page (in this case not a timeline but a page structured by global challenges/global goals/issue-that-is-systematically-monitored-for-progress).
 * I think it would be great if some organization would also care about integrating the research into Wikipedia, it doesn't necessarily have to be the ones who produced the research, I just think somebody should be doing this, whether sponsored or not, because when adding scientific information I keep seeing how nearly nobody else is doing the same these days (many articles are severely outdated and even major new scientific knowledge is usually not integrated). I don't think it's necessarily that time-intensive either, it depends on how much info is added etc, but I think there are also other routes than getting them or people associated with the authors or publishers of the research to also add it into Wikipedia more or less themselves/directly...maybe new types of student editing like this or some on-site-challenges (if possible with badges, stats, etc) like this or other things.
 * --Prototyperspective (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's how this could work -
 * 200 Wikipedia articles for countries * 5 demographics per country * 200 medical conditions = 200,000 articles or reports
 * So for example
 * Obesity in the Middle East and North Africa
 * Diabetes in Indigenous Australians
 * HIV/AIDS in China
 * Maternal health in Uganda
 * Right now all of these are manually developed. That is not sustainable.
 * There is d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine for big picture development but a lot of the Wikidata action is in subprojects, like d:Wikidata:WikiProject COVID-19. Whatever the case, the pipeline could be GBDS --> Wikidata --> (any of the connecting projects like d:Wikidata:Wikidata Bridge) --> Wikipedia. You have the right idea. University outreach could be part of this. I am at a School of Data Science and I can contribute something but eventually there needs to be like 10 organizations doing 10 projects with US$200,000 funding each. If anyone wants to apply for grants with me then message. Also come to meta:Wikimania 2023.
 * If I can help in any small way Proto then ask me.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  15:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)