Cited by 1,322Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEconomic and Environmental ValuationDelphi Technique in Research

Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

Open access
Salomon, Joshua A, Vos, Theo, Hogan, Daniel R, Gagnon, Michael, Naghavi, Mohsen, Mokdad, Ali, Begum, Nazma, Shah, Razibuzzaman +120 more·2012·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Measurement of the global burden of disease with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) requires disability weights that quantify health losses for all non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. There has been extensive debate about a range of conceptual and methodological issues concerning the definition and measurement of these weights. Our primary objective was a comprehensive re-estimation of disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 through a large-scale empirical investigation in which judgments about health losses associated with many causes of disease and injury were elicited from the general public in diverse communities through a new, standardised approach.Methods We surveyed respondents in two ways: household surveys of adults aged 18 years or older (face-to-face interviews in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania; telephone interviews in the USA) between Oct 28, 2009, and June 23, 2010; and an open-access web-based survey between July 26, 2010, and May 16, 2011. The surveys used paired comparison questions, in which respondents considered two hypothetical individuals with different, randomly selected health states and indicated which person they regarded as healthier. The web survey added questions about population health equivalence, which compared the overall health benefits of different life-saving or disease-prevention programmes. We analysed paired comparison responses with probit regression analysis on all 220 unique states in the study. We used results from the population health equivalence responses to anchor the results from the paired comparisons on the disability weight scale from 0 (implying no loss of health) to 1 (implying a health loss equivalent to death). Additionally, we compared new disability weights with those used in WHO's most recent update of the Global Burden of Disease Study for 2004.Findings 13,902 individuals participated in household surveys and 16,328 in the web survey. Analysis of paired comparison responses indicated a high degree of consistency across surveys: correlations between individual survey results and results from analysis of the pooled dataset were 0·9 or higher in all surveys except in Bangladesh (r=0·75). Most of the 220 disability weights were located on the mild end of the severity scale, with 58 (26%) having weights below 0·05. Five (11%) states had weights below 0·01, such as mild anaemia, mild hearing or vision loss, and secondary infertility. The health states with the highest disability weights were acute schizophrenia (0·76) and severe multiple sclerosis (0·71). We identified a broad pattern of agreement between the old and new weights (r=0·70), particularly in the moderate-to-severe range. However, in the mild range below 0·2, many states had significantly lower weights in our study than previously.Interpretation This study represents the most extensive empirical effort as yet to measure disability weights. By contrast with the popular hypothesis that disability assessments vary widely across samples with different cultural environments, we have reported strong evidence of highly consistent results.Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61680-8

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A separate analysis of GBD disability weights indicated that they remained relatively stable across locations; however, this work was limited to the nine countries in which disability weights surveys were done.

    “A separate analysis of GBD disability weights indicated that they remained relatively stable across locations; however this work was limited to the nine countries in which disability weights surveys were done.23, 24”

    From The global epidemiology and health burden of the autism spectrum: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous work suggests that lay people from the general public provide the most balanced responses when evaluating lay descriptions of health states, as respondents tend to underestimate the disability of their health states.

    “Previous work suggests that lay people from the general public provide the most balanced responses when evaluating lay descriptions of health states, as respondents tend to underestimate the disability of their health states.23”

    From The global epidemiology and health burden of the autism spectrum: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction discusses the general public as a source of health-state judgments, and the Methods describe lay respondents evaluating short health-state descriptions. But the paper does not conclude that the general public gives the most balanced responses. Its warning about possible underestimation concerns people living with some chronic disorders, not respondents generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Disability weights were derived from community surveys of the general population from Bangladesh, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Peru, Sweden, Tanzania, the Netherlands, and the USA, and an open internet survey available in English, Spanish, and Mandarin.

    “Disability weights were derived from community surveys of the general population from Bangladesh, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Peru, Sweden, Tanzania, the Netherlands, and the USA, and an open internet survey available in English, Spanish, and Mandarin.14, 15”

    From Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

    Methods > Study design and participants (page not provided) identifies household surveys in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru, Tanzania, and the USA, plus an open-access web survey. The same section confirms that the web survey was available in English, then Spanish and Mandarin. It does not support the claim of community surveys in Hungary, Italy, Sweden, or the Netherlands; it specifies only five household-survey countries. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Schizophrenia is one of the most severe and disabling disorders worldwide, primarily because of very high mortality rates.

    “Schizophrenia is often referred to as one of the most severe mental disorders, primarily because of the very high mortality rates of those with the disorder.”

    From Excess early mortality in schizophrenia. (2014) · cites this paper as Salomon et al. 2012

    The Results (page not provided) identify acute schizophrenia as one of the health states with the highest disability weights, supporting the severity aspect of the claim. They do not say that schizophrenia has very high mortality rates or that mortality is the primary reason for its severity; the paper’s mortality comparison concerns disability weights generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a large worldwide study, 220 disorders were assigned disability weights; schizophrenia in an acute state had a score of 0.76, the most severe of all 220.

    “However, the most severe of all 220 disorders was schizophrenia in an acute state, with a score of 0.76.”

    From Excess early mortality in schizophrenia. (2014) · cites this paper as Salomon et al. 2012

    The Findings report that acute schizophrenia had the highest disability weight, 0.76, among the 220 assessed. However, the paper calls these 220 entities health states, not 220 distinct disorders; the Results note that a single disorder could have multiple severity states. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 84 · Cited by 1,322

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [7]Murray CJL. Rethinking DALYs. In: Murray CJL, Lopez AD, eds. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Cambridge, MA: Harvard School of Public Health, 1996: 1– 98.
  2. [61]Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: report of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Authors
Salomon, J. A., Vos, T., Hogan, D. R., Gagnon, M., Naghavi, M., Mokdad, A., Begum, N., Shah, R., Karyana, M., Kosen, S., Farje, M. R., Moncada, G., Dutta, A., Sazawal, S., Dyer, A., Seiler, J., Aboyans, V., Baker, L., Baxter, A., Benjamin, E. J., Bhalla, K., Abdulhak, A. B., Blyth, F., Bourne, R., Braithwaite, T., Brooks, P., Brugha, T. S., Bryan-Hancock, C., Buchbinder, R., Burney, P., Calabria, B., Chen, H., Chugh, S. S., Cooley, R., Criqui, M. H., Cross, M., Dabhadkar, K. C., Dahodwala, N., Davis, A., Degenhardt, L., Díaz-Torné, C., Dorsey, E. R., Driscoll, T., Edmond, K., Elbaz, A., Ezzati, M., Feigin, V., Ferri, C. P., Flaxman, A. D., Flood, L., Fransen, M., Fuse, K., Gabbe, B. J., Gillum, R. F., Haagsma, J., Harrison, J. E., Havmoeller, R., Hay, R. J., Hel-Baqui, A., Hoek, H. W., Hoffman, H., Hogeland, E., Hoy, D., Jarvis, D., Jonas, J. B., Karthikeyan, G., Knowlton, L. M., Lathlean, T., Leasher, J. L., Lim, S. S., Lipshultz, S. E., Lopez, A. D., Lozano, R., Lyons, R., Malekzadeh, R., Marcenes, W., March, L., Margolis, D. J., McGill, N., McGrath, J., Mensah, G. A., Meyer, A.-C., Michaud, C., Moran, A., Mori, R., Murdoch, M. E., Naldi, L., Newton, C. R., Norman, R., Omer, S. B., Osborne, R., Pearce, N., Perez-Ruiz, F., Perico, N., Pesudovs, K., Phillips, D., Pourmalek, F., Prince, M., Rehm, J. T., Remuzzi, G., Richardson, K., Room, R., Saha, S., Sampson, U., Sanchez-Riera, L., Segui-Gomez, M., Shahraz, S., Shibuya, K., Singh, D., Sliwa, K., Smith, E., Soerjomataram, I., Steiner, T., Stolk, W. A., Stovner, L. J., Sudfeld, C., Taylor, H. R., Tleyjeh, I. M., van der Werf, M. J., Watson, W. L., Weatherall, D. J., Weintraub, R., Weisskopf, M. G., Whiteford, H., Wilkinson, J. D., Woolf, A. D., Zheng, Z.-J., & Murray, C. J.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia (ID)
  • ICF International (United States) (US)
  • Hôpital Universitaire Dupuytren (FR)
  • Boston University (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Anglia Ruskin University (GB)
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital (GB)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Medical Research Council (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • MRC Centre for Environment and Health (GB)
  • Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
  • Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
  • National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (JP)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Howard University (US)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Parnassia Groep (NL)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • All India Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
  • Nova Southeastern University (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • Digestive Disease Research Institute (IR)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • China Medical Board (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • National Center For Child Health and Development (JP)
  • Watford General Hospital (GB)
  • Centro Studi GISED (IT)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research (IT)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Brandeis University (US)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • Queen's Medical Center (US)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • King Fahd Medical City (SA)
  • Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
  • Royal Cornwall Hospital (GB)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Salomon, Joshua A
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
380
Issue
9859
Pages
2129-2143
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W1494204496
Cited by
1,322
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 100 · 2017: 116 · 2016: 137 · 2015: 156 · 2014: 158 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 6
FWCI
293.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • NSUWorks (Nova Southeastern University) (submittedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • UNIFESP Institutional Repository (Universidade Federal de São Paulo) (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Vanderbilt University
  • University of Washington
  • Wellcome Trust (092654, 095009)
  • Anglia Ruskin University
  • Australian Government
  • Harvard Global Health Institute
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Bupa Foundation
  • University of Leicester
  • Monash University
  • Flinders University
  • Department of Health, State Government of Victoria
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Universidad de Navarra
  • Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen
  • Sociedad Española de Reumatología
  • Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG034236)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08HL089675)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
disability weights, disability-adjusted life years, Global Burden of Disease Study 2010, health state valuation, pairwise comparison, health loss measurement, anemia, secondary infertility
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Bangladesh, Disability Evaluation, Female, Health Status, Health Surveys, Humans, Indonesia, Male, Middle Aged, Peru, Tanzania, United States, Wounds and Injuries, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Internet, Empirical Research, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review