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...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Public health reviews Vol. 45; p. 1606969
Main Authors:	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:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 2024
Subjects:	air pollution AirQ burden of disease health risk assessment Public Health Archive WHO AirQ air pollution health risk assessment burden of disease WHO
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	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.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 Edited by: Ana Ribeiro, University Porto, Portugal Tess Carter, Independent Researcher, Washington DC, United States Gaige Kerr, George Washington University, United States Reviewed by: Zahra Khorrami, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Iran These authors share first authorship
ISSN:	0301-0422 2107-6952
DOI:	10.3389/phrs.2024.1606969