Blog
A population health approach to rare disease – tools fit for purpose?
The significant burden on the health service and on the quality of life of a large number of Irish people caused by common diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer has driven a range of stakeholders to push for ever-more effective and comprehensive public health policies. These sorts of population health challenges are well established as the ‘bread and butter’ of public health policy-making. The full battery of population health tools in prevention, treatment and chronic disease management are employed. This has resulted in significant improvements not only in these disease areas but also in overall population health.
But what can be gained from a population health approach to rare diseases on the island of Ireland?
Population health burden – big or small?
The term ‘rare disease’ can, on the surface, give the impression that the overall burden of rare diseases to population health is small. The European definition considers a disease to be rare if it occurs with a prevalence of less than or equal to 5 per 10,000 European population. While each rare disease is indeed ‘rare’, there are over 6000 diseases considered rare so, in fact, rare disease patients form a rather large group. At European level, it is estimated that between 6 and 8 % of the population is affected by a rare disease. Applying this figure to the Republic of Ireland would produce a very rough estimate of 275,000 people.
Rare diseases are diverse but as a group they exhibit some common characteristics
- around 80% of rare diseases are genetic in origin
- the prevalence distribution of rare diseases is skewed – 80% of all rare disease patients are affected by just 350 rare diseases.
- most rare diseases are life threatening or associated with significant disability
- rare diseases are a significant contributor to the overall national level of physical, sensory and intellectual disability in children and adults
- around 50 to 75% of all rare diseases affect children
- all childhood cancers are considered rare diseases
- around 30% of children with a rare disease die before their 5th birthday
- rare diseases are responsible for 35% of deaths in the first year of life
- around 11% of all paediatric hospital admissions are for children with genetic disorders and 18.5% are for children with other congenital malformations
- late diagnosis, absent diagnosis or incorrect diagnosis are commonplace and have significant implications for those with treatable disease
Sources: EURORDIS, 2005; Ayme & Hivertleds, 2011; Posada de la Paz & Croft, 2010; NCMG, 2010; French National Plan on Rare Diseases 2004-2008. .
Taken as a group these characteristics imply a very significant mortality, disability and morbidity burden associated with rare disease.
How can public health contribute to reducing the burden of rare disease on the island of Ireland?
At European level, the experience of those countries where public health initiatives for rare diseases exist shows that a specific national approach and European collaboration can improve health and social outcomes for people with rare diseases.
It is really interesting to then consider the fit between the ‘essential public health operations’ in the context of what is now understood about the population health burden of rare disease.
These ten established essential operations include epidemiological surveillance and assessment of population health; the identification of health problems and hazards, health protection and preparedness for public health emergencies. The low level of epidemiological knowledge on rare disease has been identified in both the French and Belgian national rare disease plans as a major obstacle to the development of evidence-based service planning. Disease prevention and health promotion are also viewed as essential public health operations and these would have particular relevance in the rare disease context in terms of antenatal care, congenital anomaly and genetic counselling. The monitoring of patient outcomes and quality of care including population screening also have an important role to play in informing appropriate service delivery for rare disease patients. Grass-roots public health work such as community needs assessment, patient group and community engagement, and facilitating effective cross-sectoral working are also vital to a strategic national approach. This is particularly relevant in the case of children and adults affected by disabling rare disease that affects many facets of their lives.
The European Project for Rare Diseases National Plans Development (EUROPLAN), supported by the Programme of Community action in the field of Public Health, has developed resources to facilitate the establishment and implementation of National Plans in the field of rare diseases. Such plans or strategies are recommended to be established by the end of 2013. Health authorities of 27 EU member states signed a document, stating their willingness to fulfil this deadline including Ireland and the UK.
The UK Rare Diseases Plan is due to be released for consultation shortly. Meanwhile, the Institute of Public Health is working to support the Department of Health develop a national rare disease plan for Ireland.
- Log in to post comments
Public health across the life course time: time to renew the debate?
Colours and textures in paintings and sculptures often result from deliberate layering of paint and clay. Great oaks derive strength from their growth counted by their growth rings that build up over many seasons and years. Health, ill-health and health inequalities also develop in complex ways.
This needs to be reflected in efforts to achieve a fairer distribution of health across the island of Ireland, and IPH wishes to renew debate of these issues and welcomes your contribution to this blog.
Many factors operating at different levels
WHO defines health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity.
Health, ill-health and health inequalities are the consequence of a wide range of factors that operate at a number of different levels. Dalgren and Whitehead’s framework conceives individual health status as the result of many factors operating at a number of different levels. These factors range from societal and social influences to individual lifestyle factors to those operating at molecular and sub-molecular levels.

Dahlgren, G and Whitehead, M (1991) Rainbow model of health in Dahlgren, G (1995) European Health Policy Conference: Opportunities for the future. Vol 11 – Intersectoral Action for Health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
The healthy settings approach, consideration of ecological influences such as the “obesogenic environment” and social capital, debate about the individual and area influences; all reflect this widely held view. Some social epidemiologists argue an individual’s heath status can be best viewed as the body’s “embodiment” of these factors (Reference: N. Krieger).
Inter-connectedness and combined effects
Experience highlight how these factors operate in combination. Without consideration of relevant factors and how they work in combination in different contexts, our understanding of how health, ill-health and inequalities develop will be erroneous.
The most comprehensive illustration of this can be found in the systems maps, included in Foresight’s recent obesity report, that highlight the inter-connectedness of many factors in the “obesogenic environment”:

Effects accumulate over time
The MRC’s Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit recognizes how factors operate in different ways at different life stages and their effects accumulate over the life course and can be transferred from one generation to the next:

MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit
A system approach delivered across the life course
To maximize impact, efforts to develop and maintain a fair distribution of health must reflect these complexities and incorporate a systems approach that delivered across the life course.
During difficult economic times, emphasis is shifting from wider influences and collective responsibility to greater individual responsibility, and austerity measures affect the most vulnerable. Work pressures might lead us to forget or ignore these complexities. We need greater debate on how to respond.
Prof Kevin P Balanda, PhD FFPH
Associate Director
- Log in to post comments
Healthy Public Policy
By Owen Metcalfe, Director, Institute of Public Health in Ireland
15 August 2011
Economic recessionary times threaten many aspects of daily life and have implications for health and wellbeing. One aspect of recessionary impact is explored in the recent IPH report ‘Facing the Challenge – the Impact of the Recession and Unemployment on Men’s Health’ which has identified a strong expectation of increased mental health problems for men given the very strong correlation between unemployment and male mental health.
This report contains recommendations for addressing the needs of men faced with unemployment or the prospect of unemployment. These recommendations are based on the research which contained interviews with service providers and unemployed men across the island. It is clear that a collaborative approach involving many organisations and service providers is required to deal more effectively with this growing problem.
Yet again a piece of public health research indicates the requirement for multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral action to improve circumstances affecting health. Many of the causes of health and wellbeing lie outside the health sector and are socially and economically formed. It is therefore imperative that efforts are made to generate awareness amongst sectors where policies, programmes or projects impact on health of their contribution to the vital human asset of health.
Creating awareness is a first step and those with contributions to make must be supported and encouraged to act in a strategic and coordinated manner. Whilst the economic climate presents many threats it is also said that it presents opportunities, opportunities to think afresh about how we carry out public health. Growing burdens of disease, rises in obesity rates, continued inequalities in health as referred to in the recent TASC report – Eliminating Health Inequalities: A Matter of Life and Death (2011), and pressure on resources confirm that public health responses are urgently needed and, importantly, make economic sense.
Responding and engaging in a multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral manner will be more likely if the approach receives a Government mandate. Governments can coordinate policy-making but effective implementation requires partnership approaches at many levels. In this context two developments in public health on the island are significant and important.
In the Republic of Ireland the new public health policy being developed by the Department of Health has pledged to help people live healthier and more fulfilling lives and to create social conditions that ensure good health, on equal terms for the entire population. The commitment to recognising the requirement for cross-departmental engagement was evident by the attendance of four Ministers at the launch of the consultation process. It was particularly heartening that Ms Frances Fitzgerald, Minister for Children attended as an emphasis and priority on early years can play a huge role in influencing future mental and physical health.
In Northern Ireland the process of developingthe second Investing for Health Strategy (2002) is underway. This particular strategy, referred to by Sir Donald Acheson as one of the best public health strategies he had ever seen, placed a premium on cross-departmental engagement in the health agenda and it is to be hoped that the new Investing for Health Strategy will contain a similar endorsement of the requirement of many agencies and departments to contribute to the health agenda.
Collective joined up action is required to nurture, maintain, protect and promote good health which is an essential asset for a healthy and vibrant economy.
- Log in to post comments

