Methods Matter: A Comparative Review of Health Risk Assessments for Ambient Air Pollution in Switzerland

IF 3.5 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Pub Date : 2022-04-06 DOI:10.3389/phrs.2022.1604431
A. Castro, M. Röösli, K. de Hoogh, R. Kappeler, M. Kutlar Joss, D. Vienneau, N. Künzli
{"title":"Methods Matter: A Comparative Review of Health Risk Assessments for Ambient Air Pollution in Switzerland","authors":"A. Castro, M. Röösli, K. de Hoogh, R. Kappeler, M. Kutlar Joss, D. Vienneau, N. Künzli","doi":"10.3389/phrs.2022.1604431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Air pollution health risk assessments (AP-HRAs) provide a method to quantify health effects for entire populations. In Switzerland, AP-HRAs are included in Swiss assessments for Transport Externalities (STEs), ordered by public authorities since the 1990s. This study aimed to describe the differences among national and international AP-HRAs for Switzerland. Methods: We compared input data, approaches and results across AP-HRAs over time. Results and input data for each AP-HRA were expressed as a ratio compared to the most recent STE (in most cases STE-2010). Results: Substantial variation across AP-HRAs was found. For all-cause adult mortality attributed to particulate matter (the most frequent outcome-pollutant pair), the ratio in HRAs oscillated from 0.40 to 2.09 (times the STE-2010 value). Regarding input data, the ratio ranged from 0.69 to 1.26 for population exposure, from 0 to 1.81 for counterfactual scenario, from 0.96 to 1.13 for concentration-response function and from 1.03 to 1.13 for baseline health data. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that methods matter for AP-HRAs. Transparent and possibly standardized reporting of key input data and assumptions should be promoted to facilitate comparison of AP-HRAs. Graphical Abstract","PeriodicalId":35944,"journal":{"name":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2022.1604431","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: Air pollution health risk assessments (AP-HRAs) provide a method to quantify health effects for entire populations. In Switzerland, AP-HRAs are included in Swiss assessments for Transport Externalities (STEs), ordered by public authorities since the 1990s. This study aimed to describe the differences among national and international AP-HRAs for Switzerland. Methods: We compared input data, approaches and results across AP-HRAs over time. Results and input data for each AP-HRA were expressed as a ratio compared to the most recent STE (in most cases STE-2010). Results: Substantial variation across AP-HRAs was found. For all-cause adult mortality attributed to particulate matter (the most frequent outcome-pollutant pair), the ratio in HRAs oscillated from 0.40 to 2.09 (times the STE-2010 value). Regarding input data, the ratio ranged from 0.69 to 1.26 for population exposure, from 0 to 1.81 for counterfactual scenario, from 0.96 to 1.13 for concentration-response function and from 1.03 to 1.13 for baseline health data. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that methods matter for AP-HRAs. Transparent and possibly standardized reporting of key input data and assumptions should be promoted to facilitate comparison of AP-HRAs. Graphical Abstract
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
方法很重要:瑞士环境空气污染健康风险评估的比较综述
目的:空气污染健康风险评估(AP HRA)为量化整个人群的健康影响提供了一种方法。在瑞士,自20世纪90年代以来,公共当局下令将AP HRA纳入瑞士交通外部性评估(STE)。本研究旨在描述瑞士国内和国际AP HRA之间的差异。方法:我们比较了一段时间以来AP HRA的输入数据、方法和结果。每个AP-HRA的结果和输入数据表示为与最近的STE(在大多数情况下为STE-2010)相比的比率。结果:AP HRA之间存在显著差异。对于归因于颗粒物(最常见的结果污染物对)的全因成人死亡率,HRA的比率在0.40到2.09之间波动(STE-2010值的倍)。关于输入数据,人群暴露的比率为0.69至1.26,反事实情景的比率为0至1.81,浓度反应函数的比率为0.96至1.13,基线健康数据的比率为1.03至1.13。结论:本研究表明,方法对AP HRA很重要。应促进对关键输入数据和假设进行透明且可能标准化的报告,以便于对AP HRA进行比较。图形摘要
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
Promoting Awareness of Data Confidentiality and Security During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Low-Income Country-Sierra Leone. Understanding the Risk Factors, Burden, and Interventions for Chronic Respiratory Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review. Do COVID-19 Infectious Disease Models Incorporate the Social Determinants of Health? A Systematic Review. The European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victim (ERNST) Policy Statement on the Second Victim Phenomenon for Increasing Patient Safety. Let's Be Clear-Health Impact Assessments or Assessing Health Impacts?
×
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