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":"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。","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":null,"pages":null},"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":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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}
Two Decades of Air Pollution Health Risk Assessment: Insights From the Use of WHO's AirQ and AirQ+ Tools.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
