解决环境噪音策略的成本效益:系统的文献回顾。

3区 综合性期刊
Nick Verhaeghe, Bo Vandenbulcke, Max Lelie, Lieven Annemans, Steven Simoens, Koen Putman
{"title":"解决环境噪音策略的成本效益:系统的文献回顾。","authors":"Nick Verhaeghe, Bo Vandenbulcke, Max Lelie, Lieven Annemans, Steven Simoens, Koen Putman","doi":"10.3390/ijerph22050803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Environmental noise, a significant public health concern, is associated with adverse health effects, including cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairments, and psychological distress. Noise reduction strategies are essential for mitigating these effects. Despite evidence of their health benefits, limited information exists on the cost-effectiveness of such strategies to guide resource allocation. This study systematically reviewed economic evaluation studies of interventions aimed at reducing environmental noise to assess their cost-effectiveness and inform policymaking. A systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were full economic evaluations addressing environmental noise reduction strategies, assessing both costs and health effects. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Quality appraisal employed the CHEERS 2022 checklist. Narrative synthesis was used to analyze findings due to heterogeneity in study designs, methodologies, and outcomes. Costs were standardized to 2024 euros. From 2906 identified records, five studies met the inclusion criteria, primarily focused on traffic-related noise. Three studies conducted cost-utility analyses, and two employed cost-benefit analyses. Reported interventions included sound insulation, take-off trajectory adjustments, and noise barriers. Economic evaluations varied significantly in methodologies, cost categories, and health outcomes. The health economic studies yielded mixed results, ranging from findings that demonstrated cost-effectiveness to those where the costs exceeded the benefits. There are currently too few health economic evaluations to draw robust conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of environmental noise mitigation strategies. Future research should adopt standardized approaches and robust sensitivity analyses to enhance evidence quality, enabling informed policy and resource allocation decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49056,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health","volume":"22 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12110787/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies Addressing Environmental Noise: A Systematic Literature Review.\",\"authors\":\"Nick Verhaeghe, Bo Vandenbulcke, Max Lelie, Lieven Annemans, Steven Simoens, Koen Putman\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/ijerph22050803\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Environmental noise, a significant public health concern, is associated with adverse health effects, including cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairments, and psychological distress. Noise reduction strategies are essential for mitigating these effects. Despite evidence of their health benefits, limited information exists on the cost-effectiveness of such strategies to guide resource allocation. This study systematically reviewed economic evaluation studies of interventions aimed at reducing environmental noise to assess their cost-effectiveness and inform policymaking. A systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were full economic evaluations addressing environmental noise reduction strategies, assessing both costs and health effects. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Quality appraisal employed the CHEERS 2022 checklist. Narrative synthesis was used to analyze findings due to heterogeneity in study designs, methodologies, and outcomes. Costs were standardized to 2024 euros. From 2906 identified records, five studies met the inclusion criteria, primarily focused on traffic-related noise. Three studies conducted cost-utility analyses, and two employed cost-benefit analyses. Reported interventions included sound insulation, take-off trajectory adjustments, and noise barriers. Economic evaluations varied significantly in methodologies, cost categories, and health outcomes. The health economic studies yielded mixed results, ranging from findings that demonstrated cost-effectiveness to those where the costs exceeded the benefits. There are currently too few health economic evaluations to draw robust conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of environmental noise mitigation strategies. Future research should adopt standardized approaches and robust sensitivity analyses to enhance evidence quality, enabling informed policy and resource allocation decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\",\"volume\":\"22 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12110787/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22050803\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22050803","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境噪声是一个重大的公共卫生问题,与不利的健康影响有关,包括心血管疾病、认知障碍和心理困扰。降噪策略对于减轻这些影响至关重要。尽管有证据表明这些战略对健康有益,但关于指导资源分配的这种战略的成本效益的资料有限。本研究系统地回顾了旨在减少环境噪音的干预措施的经济评估研究,以评估其成本效益并为政策制定提供信息。遵循PRISMA 2020指南在MEDLINE、EMBASE和Web of Science上进行了系统评价。合格的研究是针对环境减少噪音战略的全面经济评价,评估成本和健康影响。筛选和数据提取由两名审稿人独立完成。质量评估采用了干杯2022检查表。叙述性综合用于分析研究设计、方法和结果的异质性。成本标准化为2024欧元。从2906份确定的记录中,有5项研究符合纳入标准,主要集中在与交通有关的噪音上。三项研究进行了成本效用分析,两项研究采用了成本效益分析。报道的干预措施包括隔音、起飞轨迹调整和隔音屏障。经济评估在方法、成本类别和健康结果方面差异很大。卫生经济学研究的结果好坏参半,既有证明成本效益的发现,也有成本超过收益的发现。目前的健康经济评价太少,无法就环境噪声缓解战略的成本效益得出强有力的结论。未来的研究应该采用标准化的方法和稳健的敏感性分析来提高证据质量,使政策和资源分配决策更加明智。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies Addressing Environmental Noise: A Systematic Literature Review.

Environmental noise, a significant public health concern, is associated with adverse health effects, including cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairments, and psychological distress. Noise reduction strategies are essential for mitigating these effects. Despite evidence of their health benefits, limited information exists on the cost-effectiveness of such strategies to guide resource allocation. This study systematically reviewed economic evaluation studies of interventions aimed at reducing environmental noise to assess their cost-effectiveness and inform policymaking. A systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were full economic evaluations addressing environmental noise reduction strategies, assessing both costs and health effects. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Quality appraisal employed the CHEERS 2022 checklist. Narrative synthesis was used to analyze findings due to heterogeneity in study designs, methodologies, and outcomes. Costs were standardized to 2024 euros. From 2906 identified records, five studies met the inclusion criteria, primarily focused on traffic-related noise. Three studies conducted cost-utility analyses, and two employed cost-benefit analyses. Reported interventions included sound insulation, take-off trajectory adjustments, and noise barriers. Economic evaluations varied significantly in methodologies, cost categories, and health outcomes. The health economic studies yielded mixed results, ranging from findings that demonstrated cost-effectiveness to those where the costs exceeded the benefits. There are currently too few health economic evaluations to draw robust conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of environmental noise mitigation strategies. Future research should adopt standardized approaches and robust sensitivity analyses to enhance evidence quality, enabling informed policy and resource allocation decisions.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14422
期刊介绍: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) (ISSN 1660-4601) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes, and short communications in the interdisciplinary area of environmental health sciences and public health. It links several scientific disciplines including biology, biochemistry, biotechnology, cellular and molecular biology, chemistry, computer science, ecology, engineering, epidemiology, genetics, immunology, microbiology, oncology, pathology, pharmacology, and toxicology, in an integrated fashion, to address critical issues related to environmental quality and public health. Therefore, IJERPH focuses on the publication of scientific and technical information on the impacts of natural phenomena and anthropogenic factors on the quality of our environment, the interrelationships between environmental health and the quality of life, as well as the socio-cultural, political, economic, and legal considerations related to environmental stewardship and public health. The 2018 IJERPH Outstanding Reviewer Award has been launched! This award acknowledge those who have generously dedicated their time to review manuscripts submitted to IJERPH. See full details at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/awards.
×
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