Improving the integration of epidemiological data into human health risk assessment: What risk assessors told us they want

Carl V. Phillips , Igor Burstyn , David J. Miller , Ali K. Hamade , Raghavendhran Avanasi , Denali Boon , Saumitra V. Rege , Sandrine E. Déglin
{"title":"Improving the integration of epidemiological data into human health risk assessment: What risk assessors told us they want","authors":"Carl V. Phillips ,&nbsp;Igor Burstyn ,&nbsp;David J. Miller ,&nbsp;Ali K. Hamade ,&nbsp;Raghavendhran Avanasi ,&nbsp;Denali Boon ,&nbsp;Saumitra V. Rege ,&nbsp;Sandrine E. Déglin","doi":"10.1016/j.gloepi.2024.100167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>One of the practical contributions of epidemiology studies is to inform risk assessment and management to protect public health. However, there is a perception among some that environmental and occupational epidemiology is falling short of satisfying the needs of risk assessors. The specific reasons for this are not clearly understood. To help identify the points of dissatisfaction and possible areas for mutual learning, we conducted a survey of risk assessors, seeking their opinions of epidemiology research. We present a few quantitative measures and a thematic analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Survey results suggest that some risk assessors (with some adamant exceptions) believe that epidemiology has great potential to contribute to risk assessment but can be deficient in many ways. For example, respondents identified the lack of full disclosure of methods, deficiencies in exposure assessment, the absence of comprehensive uncertainty analyses, and the failure to investigate or explore thresholds of effects as some of the common shortcomings. These could be straightforward to address. Respondents also brought up a wide collection of more complicated and subtle concerns that could lead to further improvement of useful results. We identify areas where mutually-educating interdisciplinary dialogue seems particularly promising. Epidemiology research is expensive, and risk management decisions even more so; therefore, it is desirable for the risk assessment and epidemiologic communities to work toward making epidemiologic research more useful for informing decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36311,"journal":{"name":"Global Epidemiology","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113324000336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the practical contributions of epidemiology studies is to inform risk assessment and management to protect public health. However, there is a perception among some that environmental and occupational epidemiology is falling short of satisfying the needs of risk assessors. The specific reasons for this are not clearly understood. To help identify the points of dissatisfaction and possible areas for mutual learning, we conducted a survey of risk assessors, seeking their opinions of epidemiology research. We present a few quantitative measures and a thematic analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Survey results suggest that some risk assessors (with some adamant exceptions) believe that epidemiology has great potential to contribute to risk assessment but can be deficient in many ways. For example, respondents identified the lack of full disclosure of methods, deficiencies in exposure assessment, the absence of comprehensive uncertainty analyses, and the failure to investigate or explore thresholds of effects as some of the common shortcomings. These could be straightforward to address. Respondents also brought up a wide collection of more complicated and subtle concerns that could lead to further improvement of useful results. We identify areas where mutually-educating interdisciplinary dialogue seems particularly promising. Epidemiology research is expensive, and risk management decisions even more so; therefore, it is desirable for the risk assessment and epidemiologic communities to work toward making epidemiologic research more useful for informing decisions.
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
更好地将流行病学数据纳入人类健康风险评估:风险评估员告诉我们他们想要什么
流行病学研究的实际贡献之一是为风险评估和管理提供信息,以保护公众健康。然而,一些人认为环境和职业流行病学不能满足风险评估者的需求。造成这种情况的具体原因尚不清楚。为了帮助找出不满意的地方以及相互学习的可能领域,我们对风险评估人员进行了一次调查,征求他们对流行病学研究的意见。我们提供了一些定量指标,并对开放式问题的回答进行了专题分析。调查结果表明,一些风险评估员(也有一些坚决的例外)认为流行病学对风险评估有很大的贡献潜力,但在很多方面可能存在不足。例如,受访者认为,缺乏对方法的充分披露、暴露评估中的缺陷、缺乏全面的不确定性分析,以及未能调查或探索影响的阈值,是一些常见的不足之处。这些都是可以直接解决的问题。受访者还提出了许多更复杂、更微妙的问题,这些问题可以进一步改进有用的结果。我们确定了一些领域,在这些领域中,相互教育的跨学科对话似乎特别有前景。流行病学研究耗资巨大,风险管理决策更是如此;因此,风险评估界和流行病学界应努力使流行病学研究更有助于为决策提供信息。
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
Global Epidemiology
Global Epidemiology Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
39 days
期刊最新文献
Academic performance and associated factors among female university students Exploring diseases burden in HIV population: Results from the CHAO (Comorbidities in HIV/AIDS outpatients) cross-sectional study in Kenya What constitutes valid evidence of causation? Gas stoves and childhood asthma revisited Letter to the editor regarding: “Challenging unverified assumptions in causal claims: Do gas stoves increase risk of pediatric asthma?” Identification of population multimorbidity patterns in 3.9 million patients from Bogota in 2018
×
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