Cross-national comparisons and ranking of summary measures of population health sometimes give rise to inconsistent and diverging conclusions. In order to minimise confusion, international comparative studies ought to be based on well-harmonised data with common standards of definitions and documentation. Calculation methods and results should be communicated clearly and exactly.
JaggerCRobineJM. Healthy life expectancy. In: RogersRGCrimminsEM eds, International handbook of adult mortality, International Handbooks of Population 2. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. pp 551–68.
2.
RobineJMCamboisENusselderW. The joint action on healthy life years (JA: EHLEIS). Arch Public Health2013;71:2.
3.
MullahyJ. Live long, live well: quantifying the health of heterogeneous populations. Health Econ2001;10:429–40.
4.
MurrayCJLRichardsMANewtonJN. UK health performance: findings of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet2013;381:997–1020.
5.
JaggerCGilliesCMosconeF. Inequalities in healthy life years in the 25 countries of the European Union in 2005: a cross-national meta-regression analysis. Lancet2008;372:2124–31.
6.
EkholmOBrønnum-HansenH. Cross-national comparisons of non-harmonized indicators may lead to more confusion than clarification. Scand J Public Health2009;37:661–3.
JaggerCMcKeeMChristensenK. Mind the gap – reaching the European target of a 2-year increase in healthy life years in the next decade. Eur J Public Health2013;23:829–33.
9.
ChanM.From new estimates to better data. Lancet2012;380:2054.
