METHODS: We assessed fruit and vegetable consumption using data from country-specific, validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, which enrolled participants from communities in 18 countries between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2013. We documented household income data from participants in these communities; we also recorded the diversity and non-sale prices of fruits and vegetables from grocery stores and market places between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2013. We determined the cost of fruits and vegetables relative to income per household member. Linear random effects models, adjusting for the clustering of households within communities, were used to assess mean fruit and vegetable intake by their relative cost.
FINDINGS: Of 143 305 participants who reported plausible energy intake in the food frequency questionnaire, mean fruit and vegetable intake was 3·76 servings (95% CI 3·66-3·86) per day. Mean daily consumption was 2·14 servings (1·93-2·36) in low-income countries (LICs), 3·17 servings (2·99-3·35) in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), 4·31 servings (4·09-4·53) in upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and 5·42 servings (5·13-5·71) in high-income countries (HICs). In 130 402 participants who had household income data available, the cost of two servings of fruits and three servings of vegetables per day per individual accounted for 51·97% (95% CI 46·06-57·88) of household income in LICs, 18·10% (14·53-21·68) in LMICs, 15·87% (11·51-20·23) in UMICs, and 1·85% (-3·90 to 7·59) in HICs (ptrend=0·0001). In all regions, a higher percentage of income to meet the guidelines was required in rural areas than in urban areas (p<0·0001 for each pairwise comparison). Fruit and vegetable consumption among individuals decreased as the relative cost increased (ptrend=0·00040).
INTERPRETATION: The consumption of fruit and vegetables is low worldwide, particularly in LICs, and this is associated with low affordability. Policies worldwide should enhance the availability and affordability of fruits and vegetables.
FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, AstraZeneca (Canada), Sanofi-Aventis (France and Canada), Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany and Canada), Servier, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, King Pharma, and national or local organisations in participating countries.
METHODS: We surveyed one key stakeholder from each of 27 countries with expertise in survivorship care on questions including the components/structure of follow-up care, delivery of treatment summaries and survivorship care plans, and involvement of primary care in survivorship. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize results across countries and variations between the WHO income categories (low, middle, high). We also performed a qualitative content analysis of narratives related to survivorship care challenges to identify major themes.
RESULTS: Seven low- or /lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC), seven upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), and 13 high-income countries (HICs) were included in this study. Results indicate that 44.4% of countries with a National Cancer Control Plan currently address survivorship care. Additional findings indicate that HICs use guidelines more often than those in LICs/LMICs and UMICs. There was great variation among countries regardless of income level. Common challenges include issues with workforce, communication and care coordination, distance/transportation issues, psychosocial support, and lack of focus on follow-up care.
CONCLUSION: This information can guide researchers, providers, and policy makers in efforts to improve the quality of survivorship care on a national and global basis. As the number of cancer survivors increases globally, countries will need to prioritize their long-term needs. Future efforts should focus on efforts to bridge oncology and primary care, building international partnerships, and implementation of guidelines.
DESIGN: Population-based prospective observational study.
SETTING: Urban and rural communities in 20 high income, middle income and low income.
PARTICIPANTS: 119 894 community-dwelling middle-aged adults.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associations of social isolation with mortality, cardiovascular death, non-cardiovascular death and incident diseases.
RESULTS: Social isolation was more common in middle-income and high-income countries compared with low-income countries, in urban areas than rural areas, in older individuals and among women, those with less education and the unemployed. It was more frequent among smokers and those with a poorer diet. Social isolation was associated with greater risk of mortality (HR of 1.26, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.36), incident stroke (HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.40), cardiovascular disease (HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.25) and pneumonia (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.37), but not cancer. The associations between social isolation and mortality were observed in populations in high-income, middle-income and low-income countries (HR (95% CI): 1.69 (1.32 to 2.17), 1.27 (1.15 to 1.40) and 1.47 (1.25 to 1.73), respectively, interaction p=0.02). The HR associated with social isolation was greater in men than women and in younger than older individuals. Mediation analyses for the association between social isolation and mortality showed that unhealthy behaviours and comorbidities may account for about one-fifth of the association.
CONCLUSION: Social isolation is associated with increased risk of mortality in countries at different economic levels. The increasing share of older people in populations in many countries argues for targeted strategies to mitigate its adverse effects.