Two Decades of Air Pollution Health Risk Assessment: Insights From the Use of WHO's AirQ and AirQ+ Tools.

IF 3.5 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Pub Date : 2024-06-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/phrs.2024.1606969
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":null,"pages":null},"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
空气污染健康风险评估二十年:使用世界卫生组织 AirQ 和 AirQ+ 工具的启示。
目的:我们对使用世界卫生组织(WHO)AirQ 和 AirQ+ 工具进行空气污染健康风险评估(HRA)的研究进行了评估,并为今后的评估提供了最佳实践建议:我们对使用世界卫生组织(WHO)的 AirQ 和 AirQ+ 工具进行空气污染健康风险评估(HRA)的研究进行了评估,并为未来的评估提供了最佳实践建议:我们对使用世界卫生组织 AirQ 和 AirQ+ 工具的研究进行了全面审查,在多个数据库中搜索了从开始到 2022 年 12 月 31 日的相关文章、报告和论文:结果:我们确定了 286 项符合标准的研究。这些研究在 69 个国家进行,其中大多数(57%)在伊朗,其次是意大利和印度(各占 8%)。我们发现,许多研究没有充分报告空气污染暴露数据、其质量和有效性。有关分析人群规模、相关健康结果、基线发病率、浓度-反应函数、相对风险值和反事实值的决定往往没有充分说明理由。许多研究缺乏不确定性评估:我们的审查发现,已发表的评估报告中存在许多共同的缺点。我们建议采取更好的做法,并敦促今后的研究重点关注输入数据的质量、其报告以及相关的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Nursing-Community and Home Care
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Influence of Climate, Atmospheric Pollution, and Natural Disasters on Cardiovascular Diseases and Diabetes Mellitus in Drylands: A Scoping Review Let's Be Clear-Health Impact Assessments or Assessing Health Impacts? Unraveling Herpes Zoster Vaccine Hesitancy, Acceptance, and Its Predictors: Insights From a Scoping Review Domains and Methods of Medical Device Technology Evaluation: A Systematic Review Deep Diving Into the Cardiovascular Health Paradox: A Journey Towards Personalized Prevention
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1