BackgroundInterventions to promote healthy eating make a potentially powerful contribution to the primary prevention of non communicable diseases. It is not known whether healthy eating interventions are equally effective among all sections of the population, nor whether they narrow or widen the health gap between rich and poor.We undertook a systematic review of interventions to promote healthy eating to identify whether impacts differ by socioeconomic position (SEP).MethodsWe searched five bibliographic databases using a pre-piloted search strategy. Retrieved articles were screened independently by two reviewers. Healthier diets were defined as the reduced intake of salt, sugar, trans-fats, saturated fat, total fat, or total calories, or increased consumption of fruit, vegetables and wholegrain. Studies were only included if quantitative results were presented by a measure of SEP.Extracted data were categorised with a modified version of the “4Ps” marketing mix, expanded to 6 “Ps”: “Price, Place, Product, Prescriptive, Promotion, and Person”.ResultsOur search identified 31,887 articles. Following screening, 36 studies were included: 18 “Price” interventions, 6 “Place” interventions, 1 “Product” intervention, zero “Prescriptive” interventions, 4 “Promotion” interventions, and 18 “Person” interventions.“Price” interventions were most effective in groups with lower SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All interventions that combined taxes and subsidies consistently decreased inequalities. Conversely, interventions categorised as “Person” had a greater impact with increasing SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All four dietary counselling interventions appear likely to widen inequalities.We did not find any “Prescriptive” interventions and only one “Product” intervention that presented differential results and had no impact by SEP. More “Place” interventions were identified and none of these interventions were judged as likely to widen inequalities.ConclusionsInterventions categorised by a “6 Ps” framework show differential effects on healthy eating outcomes by SEP. “Upstream” interventions categorised as “Price” appeared to decrease inequalities, and “downstream” “Person” interventions, especially dietary counselling seemed to increase inequalities.However the vast majority of studies identified did not explore differential effects by SEP. Interventions aimed at improving population health should be routinely evaluated for differential socioeconomic impact.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1781-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective To forecast dementia prevalence with a dynamic modelling approach that integrates calendar trends in dementia incidence with those for mortality and cardiovascular disease. Design Modelling study. Setting General adult population of England and Wales. Participants The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) is a representative panel study with six waves of data across 2002-13. Men and women aged 50 or more years, selected randomly, and their cohabiting partners were recruited to the first wave of ELSA (2002-03). 11392 adults participated (response rate 67%). To maintain representativeness, refreshment participants were recruited to the study at subsequent waves. The total analytical sample constituted 17 906 people. Constant objective criteria based on cognitive and functional impairment were used to ascertain dementia cases at each wave. Main outcome measures To estimate calendar trends in dementia incidence, correcting for bias due to loss to follow-up of study participants, a joint model of longitudinal and time-to-event data was fitted to ELSA data. To forecast future dementia prevalence, the probabilistic Markov model IMPACT-BAM (IMPACT-Better Ageing Model) was developed. IMPACT-BAM models transitions of the population aged 35 or more years through states of cardiovascular disease, cognitive and functional impairment, and dementia, to death. It enables prediction of dementia prevalence while accounting for the growing pool of susceptible people as a result of increased life expectancy and the competing effects due to changes in mortality, and incidence of cardiovascular disease. Results In ELSA, dementia incidence was estimated at 14.3 per 1000 person years in men and 17.0/1000 person years in women aged 50 or more in 2010. Dementia incidence declined at a relative rate of 2.7% (95% confidence interval 2.4% to 2.9%) for each year during 2002-13. Using IMPACT-BAM, we estimated there were approximately 767 000 (95% uncertainty interval 735 000 to 797 000) people with dementia in England and Wales in 2016. Despite the decrease in incidence and age specific prevalence, the number of people with dementia is projected to increase to 872 000, 1 092 000, and 1 205 000 in 2020, 2030, and 2040, respectively. A sensitivity analysis without the incidence decline gave a much larger projected growth, of more than 1.9 million people with dementia in 2040. Conclusions Age specific dementia incidence is declining. The number of people with dementia in England and Wales is likely to increase by 57% from 2016 to 2040. This increase is mainly driven by improved life expectancy.

No abstract

All policies to reduce dietary salt intake could gain life-years and reduce health care expenditure on coronary heart disease.

SummaryBackgroundReliable estimation of future trends in life expectancy and the burden of disability is crucial for ageing societies. Previous forecasts have not considered the potential impact of trends in disease incidence. The present prediction model combines population trends in cardiovascular disease, dementia, disability, and mortality to forecast trends in life expectancy and the burden of disability in England and Wales up to 2025.MethodsWe developed and validated the IMPACT-Better Ageing Model—a probabilistic model that tracks the population aged 35–100 years through ten health states characterised by the presence or absence of cardiovascular disease, dementia, disability (difficulty with one or more activities of daily living) or death up to 2025, by use of evidence-based age-specific, sex-specific, and year-specific transition probabilities. As shown in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, we projected continuing declines in dementia incidence (2·7% per annum), cardiovascular incidence, and mortality. The model estimates disability prevalence and disabled and disability-free life expectancy by year.FindingsBetween 2015 and 2025, the number of people aged 65 years and older will increase by 19·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·7–20·9), from 10·4 million (10·37–10·41 million) to 12·4 million (12·23–12·57 million). The number living with disability will increase by 25·0% (95% UI 21·3–28·2), from 2·25 million (2·24–2·27 million) to 2·81 million (2·72–2·89 million). The age-standardised prevalence of disability among this population will remain constant, at 21·7% (95% UI 21·5–21·8) in 2015 and 21·6% (21·3–21·8) in 2025. Total life expectancy at age 65 years will increase by 1·7 years (95% UI 0·1–3·6), from 20·1 years (19·9–20·3) to 21·8 years (20·2–23·6). Disability-free life expectancy at age 65 years will increase by 1·0 years (95% UI 0·1–1·9), from 15·4 years (15·3–15·5) to 16·4 years (15·5–17·3). However, life expectancy with disability will increase more in relative terms, with an increase of roughly 15% from 2015 (4·7 years, 95% UI 4·6–4·8) to 2025 (5·4 years, 4·7–6·4).InterpretationThe number of older people with care needs will expand by 25% by 2025, mainly reflecting population ageing rather than an increase in prevalence of disability. Lifespans will increase further in the next decade, but a quarter of life expectancy at age 65 years will involve disability.FundingBritish Heart Foundation.