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":"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.

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 求助全文
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信