Assessing Household Solid Fuel Use: Multiple Implications for the Millennium Development Goals

OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization is the agency responsible for reporting the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) indicator “percentage of population using solid fuels.” In this article, we present the results of a comprehensive assessment of solid fuel use, conducted in 2005, and discuss the implications of our findings in the context of achieving the MDGs. METHODS: For 93 countries, solid fuel use data were compiled from recent national censuses or household surveys. For the 36 countries where no data were available, the indicator was modeled. For 52 upper-middle or high-income countries, the indicator was assumed to be < 5%. RESULTS: According to our assessment, 52% of the world’s population uses solid fuels. This percentage varies widely between countries and regions, ranging from 77%, 74%, and 74% in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Western Pacific Region, respectively, to 36% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 16% in Latin America and the Caribbean and in Central and Eastern Europe. In most industrialized countries, solid fuel use falls to the < 5% mark. DISCUSSION: Although the “percentage of population using solid fuels” is classified as an indicator to measure progress towards MDG 7, reliance on traditional household energy practices has distinct implications for most of the MDGs, notably MDGs 4 and 5. There is an urgent need for development agendas to recognize the fundamental role that household energy plays in improving child and maternal health and fostering economic and social development

The impact of the environment on health by country: a meta-synthesis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health gains that environmental interventions could achieve are main questions when choosing environmental health action to prevent disease. The World Health Organization has recently released profiles of environmental burden of disease for 192 countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>These country profiles provide an estimate of the health impacts from the three major risk factors 'unsafe water, sanitation & hygiene', 'indoor air pollution from solid fuel use' and 'outdoor air pollution'. The profiles also provide an estimate of preventable health impacts by the environment as a whole. While the estimates for the three risk factors are based on country exposures, the estimates of health gains for total environmental improvements are based on a review of the literature supplemented by expert opinion and combined with country health statistics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Between 13% and 37% of the countries' disease burden could be prevented by environmental improvements, resulting globally in about 13 million deaths per year. It is estimated that about four million of these could be prevented by improving water, sanitation and hygiene, and indoor and outdoor air alone. The number of environmental DALYs per 1000 capita per year ranges between 14 and 316 according to the country. An analysis by disease group points to main preventions opportunities for each country.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Notwithstanding the uncertainties in their calculation, these estimates provide an overview of opportunities for prevention through healthier environments. The estimates show that for similar national incomes, the environmental burden of disease can typically vary by a factor five. This analysis also shows that safer water, sanitation and hygiene, and safer fuels for cooking could significantly reduce child mortality, namely by more than 25% in 20 of the lowest income countries.</p

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on cataract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. Here, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years of cataracts from occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. Objectives: We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on the development of cataract (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework and conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Data sources: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in WHO and/or ILO Member States, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative studies on the prevalence of relevant levels of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and of the total working time spent outdoors from 1960 to 2018, stratified by sex, age, country and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e. ≥30 Jm −2 /day of occupational solar UV exposure at the surface of the eye) on the prevalence or incidence of cataract, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. <30 Jm −2 /day of occupational solar UV exposure at the surface of the eye). Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018098897

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on depression

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from depression attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. Objectives: We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to long working hours (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of long working hours on depression (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Data sources: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsycINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We will include working-age (≥15 years) participants in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude child workers (&lt;15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of occupational exposure to long working hours (i.e. 35–40, 41–48, 49–54 and ≥55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 2005–2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of relevant level(s) of long working hours on the incidence of or mortality due to depression, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. 35–40 h/week). Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018085729The publication was prepared with financial support from the World Health Organization cooperative agreement with the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States of America on implementing Resolution WHA 60.26 “Workers' Health: Global Plan of Action” (Grant 1 E11 OH0010676-02)

The effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on malignant skin melanoma and non- melanoma skin cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies were conducted reporting on the association between occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and both malignant skin melanoma (melanoma) and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), with the aim of enabling the estimation of the numbers of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from melanoma and NMSC attributable to occupational exposure to solar UVR, for the development of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). A protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. Electronic bibliographic databases were searched for potentially relevant records; electronic grey literature databases and organizational websites were also searched, reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records were hand-searched, and additional experts were consulted. Randomized controlled trials and cohort, case–control and other non-randomized studies were included that estimated the effect of any occupational exposure to solar UVR, compared with no occupational exposure to solar UVR, on melanoma (excluding melanoma of the lip or eye) or NMSC prevalence, incidence or mortality. At least two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage. Adjusted relative risks were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more reviewers assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence. Fifty-three (48 case–control, three case–case and two cohort) eligible studies were found, published in 62 study records, including over 457 000 participants in 26 countries of three WHO regions (Region of the Americas, European Region and Western Pacific Region), reporting on the effect on melanoma or NMSC incidence or mortality. No studies on the prevalence of melanoma or NMSC were found. In most studies, exposure was self-reported in questionnaires during interviews and the health outcome was assessed via physician diagnosis based on biopsy and histopathological confirmation. The risk of bias of the body of evidence was judged to be generally “probably low”, although there were some concerns regarding risks of exposure misclassification bias, detection bias and confounding. The main meta-analyses of relevant case–control studies revealed a relative risk (RR) of melanoma and NMSC incidence of 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08–1.94; I2 = 81%) and 1.60 (95% CI: 1.21–2.11; I2 = 91%), respectively. No statistically significant differences in risk of melanoma and NMSC incidence were found when conducting subgroup analyses by WHO region, and no differences in risk of NMSC incidence in a subgroup analysis by sex. However, in a subgroup analysis by NMSC subtype, the increased risk of basal cell carcinoma (RR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.10–2.04; 15 studies) was probably lower (P = 0.05 for subgroup differences) than the increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (RR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.66–3.53; 6 studies). The sensitivity analyses found that effect estimates of NMSC incidence were significantly higher in studies with any risk of bias domain rated as “high” or “probably high” compared with studies with only a “low” or “probably low” risk of bias, and in studies not reporting the health outcome by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) code compared with the two studies reporting ICD codes. The quality of available evidence of the effect of any occupational exposure to solar UVR on melanoma incidence and mortality and on NMSC mortality was rated as “low”, and the quality of evidence for NMSC incidence was rated as “moderate”. The strength of the existing bodies of evidence reporting on occupational exposure to solar UVR was judged as “inadequate evidence for harmfulness” for melanoma mortality and NMSC mortality. For the health outcome of melanoma incidence, the strength of evidence was judged as “limited evidence for harmfulness”, that is, a positive relationship was observed between exposure and outcome where chance, bias and confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. For the health outcome of NMSC incidence, the strength of evidence was judged as “sufficient evidence of harmfulness”, that is, a positive relationship is observed between exposure and outcome where chance, bias and confounding can be ruled out with reasonable confidence. The 2009 International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of solar UVR as a Group 1 carcinogen that causes cutaneous melanoma and NMSC is a compelling attribute for the strength of evidence on occupational exposure to solar UVR and skin cancer incidence. Producing estimates for the burden of NMSC attributable to occupational exposure to solar UVR appears evidence-based (while acknowledging the limitations of the bodies of evidence), and the pooled effect estimates can be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates