Assessing the unintended health impacts of road transport policies and interventions: translating research evidence for use in policy and practice

Background: Transport and its links to health and health inequalities suggest that it is important to assess both the direct and unintended indirect health and related impacts of transport initiatives and policies. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) provides a framework to assess the possible health impacts of interventions such as transport. Policymakers and practitioners need access to well conducted research syntheses if research evidence is to be used to inform these assessments. The predictive validity of HIA depends heavily on the use and careful interpretation of supporting empirical evidence. Reviewing and digesting the vast volume and diversity of evidence in a field such as transport is likely to be beyond the scope of most HIAs. Collaborations between HIA practitioners and specialist reviewers to develop syntheses of best available evidence applied specifically to HIA could promote the use of evidence in practice. Methods: Best available research evidence was synthesised using the principles of systematic review. The synthesis was developed to reflect the needs of HIA practitioners and policymakers. Results: Aside from injury reduction measures, there is very little empirical data on the impact of road transport interventions. The possibility of impacts on a diverse range of outcomes and differential impacts across groups, make it difficult to assess overall benefit and harm. In addition, multiple mediating factors in the pathways between transport and hypothesised health impacts further complicate prospective assessment of impacts. Informed by the synthesis, a framework of questions was developed to help HIA practitioners identify the key questions which need to be considered in transport HIA. Conclusion: Principles of systematic review are valuable in producing syntheses of best available evidence for use in HIA practice. Assessment of the health impacts of transport interventions is characterised by much uncertainty, competing values, and differential or conflicting impacts for different population groups at a local or wider level. These are issues pertinent to the value of HIA generally. While uncertainty needs explicit acknowledgement in HIA, there is still scope for best available evidence to inform the development of healthy public policy

Using PM2.5 concentrations to estimate the health burden from solid fuel combustion, with application to Irish and Scottish homes

Background: This study estimates the potential population health burden from exposure to combustion-derived particulate air pollution in domestic settings in Ireland and Scotland. Methods: The study focused on solid fuel combustion used for heating and the use of gas for cooking. PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter < 2.5 μm) was used as the pollutant mixture indicator. Measured PM2.5 concentrations in homes using solid fuels were adjusted for other sources of PM2.5 by subtracting PM2.5 concentrations in homes using gas for cooking but not solid fuel heating. Health burden was estimated for exposure indoors 6 pm - midnight, or all day (24-hour), by combining estimated attributable annual PM2.5 exposures with (i) selected epidemiological functions linking PM2.5 with mortality and morbidity (involving some re-scaling from PM10 to PM2.5, and adjustments ‘translating’ from concentrations to exposures) and (ii) on the current population exposed and background rates of morbidity and mortality. Results: PM2.5 concentrations in coal and wood burning homes were similar to homes using gas for cooking, used here as a baseline (mean 24-hr PM2.5 concentrations 8.6 μg/m3) and so health impacts were not calculated. Concentrations of PM2.5 in homes using peat were higher (24-hr mean 15.6 μg/m3); however, health impacts were calculated for the exposed population in Ireland only; the proportion exposed in Scotland was very small. The assessment for winter evening exposure (estimated annual average increase of 2.11 μg/m3 over baseline) estimated 21 additional annual cases of all-cause mortality, 55 of chronic bronchitis, and 30,100 and 38,000 annual lower respiratory symptom days (including cough) and restricted activity days respectively. Conclusion: New methods for estimating the potential health burden of combustion-generated pollution from solid fuels in Irish and Scottish homes are provided. The methodology involves several approximations and uncertainties but is consistent with a wider movement towards quantifying risks in PM2.5 irrespective of source. Results show an effect of indoor smoke from using peat (but not wood or coal) for heating and cooking; but they do not suggest that this is a major public health issue

Quantifying the health impacts of ambient air pollutants: recommendations of a WHO/Europe project.

OBJECTIVE: Quantitative estimates of air pollution health impacts have become an increasingly critical input to policy decisions. The WHO project "Health risks of air pollution in Europe--HRAPIE" was implemented to provide the evidence-based concentration-response functions for quantifying air pollution health impacts to support the 2013 revision of the air quality policy for the European Union (EU). METHODS: A group of experts convened by WHO Regional Office for Europe reviewed the accumulated primary research evidence together with some commissioned reviews and recommended concentration-response functions for air pollutant-health outcome pairs for which there was sufficient evidence for a causal association. RESULTS: The concentration-response functions link several indicators of mortality and morbidity with short- and long-term exposure to particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide. The project also provides guidance on the use of these functions and associated baseline health information in the cost-benefit analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The project results provide the scientific basis for formulating policy actions to improve air quality and thereby reduce the burden of disease associated with air pollution in Europe

Covert observation in practice: lessons from the evaluation of the prohibition of smoking in public places in Scotland

Background: A ban on smoking in wholly or substantially enclosed public places has been in place in Scotland since 26th March 2006. The impact of this legislation is currently being evaluated in seven studies, three of which involve direct observation of smoking in bars and other enclosed public places. While the ethical issues around covert observation have been widely discussed there is little practical guidance on the conduct of such research. A workshop was therefore convened to identify practical lessons learned so far from the Scottish evaluation. Methods: We convened a workshop involving researchers from the three studies which used direct observation. In addition, one of the fieldwork managers collected written feedback on the fieldwork, identifying problems that arose in the field and some solutions. Results: There were four main themes identified: (i) the difficulty of achieving and maintaining concealment; (ii) the experience of being an observer; (iii) the risk of bias in the observations and (iv) issues around training and recruitment. These are discussed. Conclusion: Collecting covert observational data poses unique practical challenges, in particular in relation to the health and safety of the researcher. The findings and solutions presented in this paper will be of value to researchers designing similar studies

Response to: Premature deaths attributed to ambient air pollutants: let us interpret the Robins-Greenland theorem correctly.

We thank Morfeld and Erren for their continued interest in the WHO Health risks of air pollution in Europe (HRAPIE) report (WHO Regional Office for Europe 2013). The key point of contention seems to be the interpretation of the numbers of ‘premature deaths’ associated with air pollution (or any other) exposure. In the IJPH article that is at the basis of the two letters written by Morfeld and Erren (Heroux et al. 2015), the limitations of calculating and using numbers of ‘premature deaths’ were perhaps not sufficiently explained. We elaborated on this in our first response (Heroux et al. 2016), arguing that the criticized calculation of ‘premature deaths’ produces a reasonable albeit ambiguous estimate, for which reason calculation of years of life lost is a more preferable approach. We would like to point out that the HRAPIE report really is about identification of concentration–response functions to be further used in health impact assessments, and therefore did not pretend to provide a discussion of estimating etiologic fractions. Morfeld and Erren single out the one numerical example of an impact assessment given in our paper, and that example was not a result from the HRAPIE work itself but a quote from a report from the European Commission (2013). We never intended to give the impression that these numbers refer to individually identifiable, attributable deaths, however.Peer reviewe

Public health impacts of city policies to reduce climate change:Findings from the URGENCHE EU-China project

Climate change is a global threat to health and wellbeing. Here we provide findings of an international research project investigating the health and wellbeing impacts of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in urban environments.; Five European and two Chinese city authorities and partner academic organisations formed the project consortium. The methodology involved modelling the impact of adopted urban climate-change mitigation transport, buildings and energy policy scenarios, usually for the year 2020 and comparing them with business as usual (BAU) scenarios (where policies had not been adopted). Carbon dioxide emissions, health impacting exposures (air pollution, noise and physical activity), health (cardiovascular, respiratory, cancer and leukaemia) and wellbeing (including noise related wellbeing, overall wellbeing, economic wellbeing and inequalities) were modelled. The scenarios were developed from corresponding known levels in 2010 and pre-existing exposure response functions. Additionally there were literature reviews, three longitudinal observational studies and two cross sectional surveys.; There are four key findings. Firstly introduction of electric cars may confer some small health benefits but it would be unwise for a city to invest in electric vehicles unless their power generation fuel mix generates fewer emissions than petrol and diesel. Second, adopting policies to reduce private car use may have benefits for carbon dioxide reduction and positive health impacts through reduced noise and increased physical activity. Third, the benefits of carbon dioxide reduction from increasing housing efficiency are likely to be minor and co-benefits for health and wellbeing are dependent on good air exchange. Fourthly, although heating dwellings by in-home biomass burning may reduce carbon dioxide emissions, consequences for health and wellbeing were negative with the technology in use in the cities studied.; The climate-change reduction policies reduced CO2 emissions (the most common greenhouse gas) from cities but impact on global emissions of CO2 would be more limited due to some displacement of emissions. The health and wellbeing impacts varied and were often limited reflecting existing relatively high quality of life and environmental standards in most of the participating cities; the greatest potential for future health benefit occurs in less developed or developing countries