Heresh Amini, Fatemeh Yousefian, Sasan Faridi, Zorana J Andersen, Ellénore Calas, Alberto Castro, Karla Cervantes-Martínez, Thomas Cole-Hunter, Magali Corso, Natasa Dragic, Dimitris Evangelopoulos, Christian Gapp, Mohammad Sadegh Hassanvand, Ingu Kim, Alain Le Tertre, Sylvia Medina, Brian Miller, Stephanie Montero, Weeberb J Requia, Horacio Riojas-Rodriguez, David Rojas-Rueda, Evangelia Samoli, Jose Luis Texcalac-Sangrador, Maayan Yitshak-Sade, Joel Schwartz, Nino Kuenzli, Joseph V Spadaro, Michal Krzyzanowski, Pierpaolo Mudu
{"title":"Two Decades of Air Pollution Health Risk Assessment: Insights From the Use of WHO's AirQ and AirQ+ Tools.","authors":"Heresh Amini, Fatemeh Yousefian, Sasan Faridi, Zorana J Andersen, Ellénore Calas, Alberto Castro, Karla Cervantes-Martínez, Thomas Cole-Hunter, Magali Corso, Natasa Dragic, Dimitris Evangelopoulos, Christian Gapp, Mohammad Sadegh Hassanvand, Ingu Kim, Alain Le Tertre, Sylvia Medina, Brian Miller, Stephanie Montero, Weeberb J Requia, Horacio Riojas-Rodriguez, David Rojas-Rueda, Evangelia Samoli, Jose Luis Texcalac-Sangrador, Maayan Yitshak-Sade, Joel Schwartz, Nino Kuenzli, Joseph V Spadaro, Michal Krzyzanowski, Pierpaolo Mudu","doi":"10.3389/phrs.2024.1606969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated studies that used the World Health Organization's (WHO) AirQ and AirQ+ tools for air pollution (AP) health risk assessment (HRA) and provided best practice suggestions for future assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a comprehensive review of studies using WHO's AirQ and AirQ+ tools, searching several databases for relevant articles, reports, and theses from inception to Dec 31, 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 286 studies that met our criteria. The studies were conducted in 69 countries, with most (57%) in Iran, followed by Italy and India (∼8% each). We found that many studies inadequately report air pollution exposure data, its quality, and validity. The decisions concerning the analysed population size, health outcomes of interest, baseline incidence, concentration-response functions, relative risk values, and counterfactual values are often not justified, sufficiently. Many studies lack an uncertainty assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our review found a number of common shortcomings in the published assessments. We suggest better practices and urge future studies to focus on the quality of input data, its reporting, and associated uncertainties.</p>","PeriodicalId":35944,"journal":{"name":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","volume":"45 ","pages":"1606969"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11217191/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2024.1606969","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: We evaluated studies that used the World Health Organization's (WHO) AirQ and AirQ+ tools for air pollution (AP) health risk assessment (HRA) and provided best practice suggestions for future assessments.
Methods: We performed a comprehensive review of studies using WHO's AirQ and AirQ+ tools, searching several databases for relevant articles, reports, and theses from inception to Dec 31, 2022.
Results: We identified 286 studies that met our criteria. The studies were conducted in 69 countries, with most (57%) in Iran, followed by Italy and India (∼8% each). We found that many studies inadequately report air pollution exposure data, its quality, and validity. The decisions concerning the analysed population size, health outcomes of interest, baseline incidence, concentration-response functions, relative risk values, and counterfactual values are often not justified, sufficiently. Many studies lack an uncertainty assessment.
Conclusion: Our review found a number of common shortcomings in the published assessments. We suggest better practices and urge future studies to focus on the quality of input data, its reporting, and associated uncertainties.