公共卫生环境正义研究方法:2018年至2021年范围界定综述。

IF 7.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Current Environmental Health Reports Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-15 DOI:10.1007/s40572-023-00406-7
Joan A Casey, Misbath Daouda, Ryan S Babadi, Vivian Do, Nina M Flores, Isa Berzansky, David J X González, Yoshira Ornelas Van Horne, Tamarra James-Todd
{"title":"公共卫生环境正义研究方法:2018年至2021年范围界定综述。","authors":"Joan A Casey, Misbath Daouda, Ryan S Babadi, Vivian Do, Nina M Flores, Isa Berzansky, David J X González, Yoshira Ornelas Van Horne, Tamarra James-Todd","doi":"10.1007/s40572-023-00406-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The volume of public health environmental justice (EJ) research produced by academic institutions increased through 2022. However, the methods used for evaluating EJ in exposure science and epidemiologic studies have not been catalogued. Here, we completed a scoping review of EJ studies published in 19 environmental science and epidemiologic journals from 2018 to 2021 to summarize research types, frameworks, and methods.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>We identified 402 articles that included populations with health disparities as a part of EJ research question and met other inclusion criteria. Most studies (60%) evaluated EJ questions related to socioeconomic status (SES) or race/ethnicity. EJ studies took place in 69 countries, led by the US (n = 246 [61%]). Only 50% of studies explicitly described a theoretical EJ framework in the background, methods, or discussion and just 10% explicitly stated a framework in all three sections. Among exposure studies, the most common area-level exposure was air pollution (40%), whereas chemicals predominated personal exposure studies (35%). Overall, the most common method used for exposure-only EJ analyses was main effect regression modeling (50%); for epidemiologic studies the most common method was effect modification (58%), where an analysis evaluated a health disparity variable as an effect modifier. Based on the results of this scoping review, current methods in public health EJ studies could be bolstered by integrating expertise from other fields (e.g., sociology), conducting community-based participatory research and intervention studies, and using more rigorous, theory-based, and solution-oriented statistical research methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":10775,"journal":{"name":"Current Environmental Health Reports","volume":"10 3","pages":"312-336"},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10504232/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods in Public Health Environmental Justice Research: a Scoping Review from 2018 to 2021.\",\"authors\":\"Joan A Casey, Misbath Daouda, Ryan S Babadi, Vivian Do, Nina M Flores, Isa Berzansky, David J X González, Yoshira Ornelas Van Horne, Tamarra James-Todd\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40572-023-00406-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The volume of public health environmental justice (EJ) research produced by academic institutions increased through 2022. However, the methods used for evaluating EJ in exposure science and epidemiologic studies have not been catalogued. Here, we completed a scoping review of EJ studies published in 19 environmental science and epidemiologic journals from 2018 to 2021 to summarize research types, frameworks, and methods.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>We identified 402 articles that included populations with health disparities as a part of EJ research question and met other inclusion criteria. Most studies (60%) evaluated EJ questions related to socioeconomic status (SES) or race/ethnicity. EJ studies took place in 69 countries, led by the US (n = 246 [61%]). Only 50% of studies explicitly described a theoretical EJ framework in the background, methods, or discussion and just 10% explicitly stated a framework in all three sections. Among exposure studies, the most common area-level exposure was air pollution (40%), whereas chemicals predominated personal exposure studies (35%). Overall, the most common method used for exposure-only EJ analyses was main effect regression modeling (50%); for epidemiologic studies the most common method was effect modification (58%), where an analysis evaluated a health disparity variable as an effect modifier. Based on the results of this scoping review, current methods in public health EJ studies could be bolstered by integrating expertise from other fields (e.g., sociology), conducting community-based participatory research and intervention studies, and using more rigorous, theory-based, and solution-oriented statistical research methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10775,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Environmental Health Reports\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"312-336\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10504232/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Environmental Health Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-023-00406-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Environmental Health Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-023-00406-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

审查目的:到2022年,学术机构开展的公共卫生环境正义(EJ)研究数量有所增加。然而,暴露科学和流行病学研究中用于评估EJ的方法尚未编目。在这里,我们完成了对2018年至2021年发表在19份环境科学和流行病学杂志上的EJ研究的范围审查,以总结研究类型、框架和方法。最近的发现:作为EJ研究问题的一部分,我们确定了402篇包含健康差异人群的文章,并符合其他纳入标准。大多数研究(60%)评估了与社会经济地位(SES)或种族/民族相关的EJ问题。EJ研究在69个国家进行,以美国为首(n=246[61%])。只有50%的研究在背景、方法或讨论中明确描述了理论EJ框架,只有10%的研究在所有三个部分中明确说明了框架。在暴露研究中,最常见的区域级暴露是空气污染(40%),而化学品在个人暴露研究中占主导地位(35%)。总体而言,仅用于暴露的EJ分析的最常见方法是主效应回归建模(50%);在流行病学研究中,最常见的方法是效果修正(58%),其中分析评估了健康差异变量作为效果修正。根据这一范围界定审查的结果,可以通过整合其他领域(如社会学)的专业知识,进行基于社区的参与性研究和干预研究,以及使用更严格的、基于理论和面向解决方案的统计研究方法,来支持公共卫生EJ研究的当前方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Methods in Public Health Environmental Justice Research: a Scoping Review from 2018 to 2021.

Methods in Public Health Environmental Justice Research: a Scoping Review from 2018 to 2021.

Methods in Public Health Environmental Justice Research: a Scoping Review from 2018 to 2021.

Methods in Public Health Environmental Justice Research: a Scoping Review from 2018 to 2021.

Purpose of review: The volume of public health environmental justice (EJ) research produced by academic institutions increased through 2022. However, the methods used for evaluating EJ in exposure science and epidemiologic studies have not been catalogued. Here, we completed a scoping review of EJ studies published in 19 environmental science and epidemiologic journals from 2018 to 2021 to summarize research types, frameworks, and methods.

Recent findings: We identified 402 articles that included populations with health disparities as a part of EJ research question and met other inclusion criteria. Most studies (60%) evaluated EJ questions related to socioeconomic status (SES) or race/ethnicity. EJ studies took place in 69 countries, led by the US (n = 246 [61%]). Only 50% of studies explicitly described a theoretical EJ framework in the background, methods, or discussion and just 10% explicitly stated a framework in all three sections. Among exposure studies, the most common area-level exposure was air pollution (40%), whereas chemicals predominated personal exposure studies (35%). Overall, the most common method used for exposure-only EJ analyses was main effect regression modeling (50%); for epidemiologic studies the most common method was effect modification (58%), where an analysis evaluated a health disparity variable as an effect modifier. Based on the results of this scoping review, current methods in public health EJ studies could be bolstered by integrating expertise from other fields (e.g., sociology), conducting community-based participatory research and intervention studies, and using more rigorous, theory-based, and solution-oriented statistical research methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
1.30%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: Current Environmental Health Reports provides up-to-date expert reviews in environmental health. The goal is to evaluate and synthesize original research in all disciplines relevant for environmental health sciences, including basic research, clinical research, epidemiology, and environmental policy.
×
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