怀孕期间的居住流动性和潜在暴露的空气污染、温度和绿化的错误分类

IF 3.3 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Seulkee Heo, Yelena Afanasyeva, Leonardo Trasande, Michelle L. Bell, Akhgar Ghassabian
{"title":"怀孕期间的居住流动性和潜在暴露的空气污染、温度和绿化的错误分类","authors":"Seulkee Heo, Yelena Afanasyeva, Leonardo Trasande, Michelle L. Bell, Akhgar Ghassabian","doi":"10.1097/ee9.0000000000000273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Epidemiological studies commonly use residential addresses at birth to estimate exposures throughout pregnancy, ignoring residential mobility. Lack of consideration for residential mobility during pregnancy might lead to exposure misclassification that should be addressed in environmental epidemiology. Methods: We investigated potential exposure misclassification from estimating exposure during pregnancy by residence at delivery utilizing a prospective cohort of pregnant women in New York, United States (n = 1899; 2016–2019). We calculated exposure during pregnancy corresponding to each address for fine particles (PM 2.5 ), temperature, and greenness (Enhanced Vegetation Index [EVI]). Results: Twenty-two percent of participants moved at least once during pregnancy; 82.3% of movers changed residences during the second or third trimesters. Participants with better health, lower parity, and higher socioeconomic status were more likely to move. Exposures based on address at delivery rather than residential history overestimated exposure for PM 2.5 (exposure error: range −5.7 to 4.6 µg/m 3 , average −0.6 µg/m 3 ) and EVI (range −0.305 to 0.307, average −0.013), but not temperature. Overestimations were significantly larger for mothers with higher socioeconomic status. Our findings indicate that the error for prenatal exposure can occur when residential mobility is not considered and is disproportional by maternal characteristics. Conclusions: Epidemiological studies should consider residential mobility in exposure assessments based on geolocation when possible, and results based on mother’s residence at birth should be interpreted with understanding of potential differential exposure misclassification.","PeriodicalId":11713,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Residential mobility in pregnancy and potential exposure misclassification of air pollution, temperature, and greenness\",\"authors\":\"Seulkee Heo, Yelena Afanasyeva, Leonardo Trasande, Michelle L. Bell, Akhgar Ghassabian\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ee9.0000000000000273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Epidemiological studies commonly use residential addresses at birth to estimate exposures throughout pregnancy, ignoring residential mobility. Lack of consideration for residential mobility during pregnancy might lead to exposure misclassification that should be addressed in environmental epidemiology. Methods: We investigated potential exposure misclassification from estimating exposure during pregnancy by residence at delivery utilizing a prospective cohort of pregnant women in New York, United States (n = 1899; 2016–2019). We calculated exposure during pregnancy corresponding to each address for fine particles (PM 2.5 ), temperature, and greenness (Enhanced Vegetation Index [EVI]). Results: Twenty-two percent of participants moved at least once during pregnancy; 82.3% of movers changed residences during the second or third trimesters. Participants with better health, lower parity, and higher socioeconomic status were more likely to move. Exposures based on address at delivery rather than residential history overestimated exposure for PM 2.5 (exposure error: range −5.7 to 4.6 µg/m 3 , average −0.6 µg/m 3 ) and EVI (range −0.305 to 0.307, average −0.013), but not temperature. Overestimations were significantly larger for mothers with higher socioeconomic status. Our findings indicate that the error for prenatal exposure can occur when residential mobility is not considered and is disproportional by maternal characteristics. Conclusions: Epidemiological studies should consider residential mobility in exposure assessments based on geolocation when possible, and results based on mother’s residence at birth should be interpreted with understanding of potential differential exposure misclassification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11713,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ee9.0000000000000273\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ee9.0000000000000273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

流行病学研究通常使用出生时的居住地址来估计整个怀孕期间的暴露,而忽略了居住流动性。缺乏对怀孕期间居住流动的考虑可能导致暴露错误分类,这应该在环境流行病学中解决。方法:我们利用美国纽约的一组孕妇(n = 1899;2016 - 2019)。我们计算了每个地址对应的怀孕期间暴露的细颗粒物(PM 2.5)、温度和绿化率(增强植被指数[EVI])。结果:22%的参与者在怀孕期间至少搬家一次;82.3%的搬家者在妊娠中期或晚期更换住所。健康状况较好、平等程度较低、社会经济地位较高的参与者更有可能搬家。基于送货地址而非居住历史的暴露过高估计了pm2.5暴露(暴露误差范围为- 5.7至4.6µg/ m3,平均为- 0.6µg/ m3)和EVI(范围为- 0.305至0.307,平均为- 0.013),但不包括温度。社会经济地位较高的母亲被高估的程度要大得多。我们的研究结果表明,当不考虑居住流动性时,产前暴露的误差可能会发生,并且与母亲的特征不成比例。结论:流行病学研究应尽可能在基于地理位置的暴露评估中考虑居住地的流动性,而基于母亲出生时居住地的结果应在理解潜在的差异暴露错误分类的情况下进行解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Residential mobility in pregnancy and potential exposure misclassification of air pollution, temperature, and greenness
Introduction: Epidemiological studies commonly use residential addresses at birth to estimate exposures throughout pregnancy, ignoring residential mobility. Lack of consideration for residential mobility during pregnancy might lead to exposure misclassification that should be addressed in environmental epidemiology. Methods: We investigated potential exposure misclassification from estimating exposure during pregnancy by residence at delivery utilizing a prospective cohort of pregnant women in New York, United States (n = 1899; 2016–2019). We calculated exposure during pregnancy corresponding to each address for fine particles (PM 2.5 ), temperature, and greenness (Enhanced Vegetation Index [EVI]). Results: Twenty-two percent of participants moved at least once during pregnancy; 82.3% of movers changed residences during the second or third trimesters. Participants with better health, lower parity, and higher socioeconomic status were more likely to move. Exposures based on address at delivery rather than residential history overestimated exposure for PM 2.5 (exposure error: range −5.7 to 4.6 µg/m 3 , average −0.6 µg/m 3 ) and EVI (range −0.305 to 0.307, average −0.013), but not temperature. Overestimations were significantly larger for mothers with higher socioeconomic status. Our findings indicate that the error for prenatal exposure can occur when residential mobility is not considered and is disproportional by maternal characteristics. Conclusions: Epidemiological studies should consider residential mobility in exposure assessments based on geolocation when possible, and results based on mother’s residence at birth should be interpreted with understanding of potential differential exposure misclassification.
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
Environmental Epidemiology
Environmental Epidemiology Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
2.80%
发文量
71
审稿时长
25 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