Two Decades of Air Pollution Health Risk Assessment: Insights From the Use of WHO's AirQ and AirQ+ Tools

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. We performed a comprehensive review of studies using WHO's AirQ and AirQ+ tools, sear...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Public health reviews 2024, Vol.45, p.1606969
Hauptverfasser: Amini, Heresh, Yousefian, Fatemeh, Faridi, Sasan, Andersen, Zorana J, Calas, Ellénore, Castro, Alberto, Cervantes-Martínez, Karla, Cole-Hunter, Thomas, Corso, Magali, Dragic, Natasa, Evangelopoulos, Dimitris, Gapp, Christian, Hassanvand, Mohammad Sadegh, Kim, Ingu, Le Tertre, Alain, Medina, Sylvia, Miller, Brian, Montero, Stephanie, Requia, Weeberb J, Riojas-Rodriguez, Horacio, Rojas-Rueda, David, Samoli, Evangelia, Texcalac-Sangrador, Jose Luis, Yitshak-Sade, Maayan, Schwartz, Joel, Kuenzli, Nino, Spadaro, Joseph V, Krzyzanowski, Michal, Mudu, Pierpaolo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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. 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. 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. 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.
ISSN:0301-0422
2107-6952
DOI:10.3389/phrs.2024.1606969