Difference between revisions of "Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors"
(→Rationale) |
(→Answer) |
||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
Parental unemployement|Maltreatment of Children||Other|yes/no|OR|2.33||Sidebotham et al. 2002 | Parental unemployement|Maltreatment of Children||Other|yes/no|OR|2.33||Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
Car use|Maltreatment of Children||Other|yes/no|OR|2.23||Sidebotham et al. 2002 | Car use|Maltreatment of Children||Other|yes/no|OR|2.23||Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| − | + | House dampness|Headache||inhalation, other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 | |
| − | + | House dampness|Aches and pains||inhalation, other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 | |
| − | Social life| | + | House dampness|Diarrhea ||inhalation, other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 |
| − | Alcohol|health problems||other|yes/no| | + | House dampness|Neurological problems||Other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 |
| − | Lone adult| | + | House dampness|Migraine||Other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 |
| − | Unemployment seeking work| | + | House dampness|Chest problems||inhalation, other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 |
| + | House dampness|High blood pressure||inhalation, other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 | ||
| + | House dampness|Muscle tension||Other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 | ||
| + | Smoking|Respiratory disease||inhalation|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 | ||
| + | Social life|Health problems||other|<21||||Packer et al. 1994 | ||
| + | Alcohol|Severe health problems||other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 | ||
| + | Lone adult|Mental problems||other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 | ||
| + | Unemployment seeking work|Mental problem||other|yes/no||||Packer et al. 1994 | ||
| + | |||
Smoking|chronic respiratory disease||other|yes/no|OR|4.36(2.46-7.74)||Blackman et al. (2001) | Smoking|chronic respiratory disease||other|yes/no|OR|4.36(2.46-7.74)||Blackman et al. (2001) | ||
Dampness|chronic respiratory disease||other|yes/no|OR|2.10(1.36-3.50)||Blackman et al. (2001) | Dampness|chronic respiratory disease||other|yes/no|OR|2.10(1.36-3.50)||Blackman et al. (2001) | ||
Revision as of 09:53, 7 February 2013
This page is a variable.
The page identifier is Op_en5802 |
|---|
| Moderator:Marjo (see all) |
| This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page, and then a rating bar will appear here. |
| Upload data
|
Contents
Question
What established or possible indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors exist? What kind of dose-responses have been defined for them?
Answer
You have error(s) in your data:You have invalid number of data cells in row 81
| Obs | Exposure metric | Response | Response metric | Exposure route | Exposure unit | ERF parameter | ERF | Significance | Description/Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Visible dampness and/or mold or mold odor | Respiratory health effect | Inhalation | yes/no | OR | several, see Note 1 | Note 1 | ||
| 2 | Dampness and/or mold | Depression | Inhalation, Other? | Note 2 | |||||
| 3 | Dampness and/or mold | Mental health problems | Inhalation, Other? | Note 2 | |||||
| 4 | Dampness and/or mold | Self-assessed health poorer | Inhalation, Other? | Note 2 | |||||
| 5 | Dampness and/or mold | Mental health problems | Inhalation, dermal and ingestion | yes/no | OR | 1.76 (1.17-2.66) | Hopton and Hunt (1996) | ||
| 6 | Chronic illness | Mental health problems | not applicable | yes/no | OR | 1.99 (1.32-3.02) | Hopton and Hunt (1996) | ||
| 7 | Living with children under 16 y | Mental health problems | not applicable | yes/no | OR | 1.75 (1.15-2.68) | Hopton and Hunt (1996) | ||
| 8 | Living in a low income household | Mental health problems | not applicable | yes/no | OR | 1.61 (1.06-2.44) | Hopton and Hunt (1996) | ||
| 9 | Respondent unemployed | Mental health problems | not applicable | yes/no | OR | 1.55 (0.99-2.42) | Hopton and Hunt (1996) | ||
| 10 | Wood smoke | Respiratory health effect | Inhalation | Note 3, Note 4 | |||||
| 11 | Wood smoke | Irritation of eyes and mucosa | |||||||
| 12 | Wood smoke | Respiratory health effect | Inhalation | ||||||
| 13 | Wood smoke | Odour problems | Inhalation | ||||||
| 14 | Wood smoke | Comfort of housing | |||||||
| 15 | Wood smoke | Chronic infections | Inhalation | ||||||
| 16 | Wood smoke | Cancer | Inhalation | ||||||
| 17 | Tobacco smoke | Respiratory health effect | Inhalation | ||||||
| 18 | Tobacco smoke | Irritation of eyes and mucosa | |||||||
| 19 | Tobacco smoke | Respiratory health effect | |||||||
| 20 | Tobacco smoke | Odour problems | Inhalation | ||||||
| 21 | Tobacco smoke | Comfort of housing | |||||||
| 22 | Tobacco smoke | Chronic infections | Inhalation | ||||||
| 23 | Tobacco smoke | Cancer | |||||||
| 24 | VOCs | irritation symptoms etc. | |||||||
| 25 | CO2 | headache, tiredness etc. | |||||||
| 26 | CO | headache, tiredness etc. | |||||||
| 27 | Insufficient air exchange | Headache | |||||||
| 28 | Insufficient air exchange | Tiredness | |||||||
| 29 | Insufficient air exchange | Decreased ability to concentrate | |||||||
| 30 | Insufficient air exchange | Feeling of fug | |||||||
| 31 | Thermal conditions; heat | Tiredness | |||||||
| 32 | Thermal conditions; heat | Decreased ability to concentrate | |||||||
| 33 | Thermal conditions; heat | Increased respiratory symptoms | |||||||
| 34 | Thermal conditions; heat | Feeling of dryness | |||||||
| 35 | Thermal conditions; heat | Comfort of housing | |||||||
| 36 | Thermal comfort (draught or cold) | Mental health problems | Note 2 | ||||||
| 37 | Thermal comfort (heat or cold) | Depression | Note 2 | ||||||
| 38 | Thermal comfort (heat or cold; general perception of thermal problems) | Self-assessed health poorer | Note 2 | ||||||
| 39 | Thermal conditions (cold) | Feeling of draught | |||||||
| 40 | Thermal conditions (cold) | Comfort of housing | |||||||
| 41 | Noise | Hearing injury | |||||||
| 42 | Noise | Sleep disturbance | |||||||
| 43 | Noise | Stress | |||||||
| 44 | Noise | Comfort of housing | |||||||
| 45 | Proximity to traffic | Mortality(?) | |||||||
| 46 | Radon | Lung cancer | Note 5 | ||||||
| 47 | Relative humidity | ||||||||
| 48 | PM | mortality | Note 3 | ||||||
| 49 | PM | chronic bronchitis | |||||||
| 50 | PM | lung cancer | |||||||
| 51 | Reduced space (house/flat) | Depression | Note 2 | ||||||
| 52 | Reduced space (house/flat) | Mental health problems | Note 2 | ||||||
| 53 | Reduced space (house/flat) | Self-assessed health poorer | Note 2 | ||||||
| 54 | Garden | Depression | Note 2 | ||||||
| 55 | Floor level | Mental health problems | Note 2 | ||||||
| 56 | Overcrowding | Mental health problems | Note 2 | ||||||
| 57 | Overcrowding | Self assessed health poorer | Note 2 | ||||||
| 58 | Sensory IAQ | Various health and well-being parameters | |||||||
| 59 | Maternal employment | Maltreatment of Children | Other | yes/no | OR | 2.82 (1.59 - 5.00) | Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| 60 | 2 - 3 house moves in previous 5 years | Maltreatment of Children | Other | medium vs. low | OR | 1.32 (0.77 - 2.27) | Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| 61 | 4 or more house moves in previous 5 years | Maltreatment of Children | Other | high vs. low | OR | 2.81 (1.59 - 4.96) | Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| 62 | Accomodation - overcrowed | Maltreatment of Children | Other | yes/no | OR | 2.16 | Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| 63 | Accomodation - council | Maltreatment of Children | Other | Council vs. owned/mortgarged | OR | 7.65 | Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| 64 | Accomodation - rented | Maltreatment of Children | Other | Rented vs. owned/mortgarged | OR | 4.47 | Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| 65 | Social Network Score < 21 | Maltreatment of Children | Other | yes/no | OR | 3.09 (1.84 - 5.19) | Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| 66 | Parental unemployement | Maltreatment of Children | Other | yes/no | OR | 2.33 | Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| 67 | Car use | Maltreatment of Children | Other | yes/no | OR | 2.23 | Sidebotham et al. 2002 | ||
| 68 | House dampness | Headache | inhalation, other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 69 | House dampness | Aches and pains | inhalation, other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 70 | House dampness | Diarrhea | inhalation, other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 71 | House dampness | Neurological problems | Other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 72 | House dampness | Migraine | Other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 73 | House dampness | Chest problems | inhalation, other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 74 | House dampness | High blood pressure | inhalation, other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 75 | House dampness | Muscle tension | Other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 76 | Smoking | Respiratory disease | inhalation | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 77 | Social life | Health problems | other | <21 | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 78 | Alcohol | Severe health problems | other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 79 | Lone adult | Mental problems | other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 80 | Unemployment seeking work | Mental problem | other | yes/no | Packer et al. 1994 | ||||
| 81 | |||||||||
| 82 | Smoking | chronic respiratory disease | other | yes/no | OR | 4.36(2.46-7.74) | Blackman et al. (2001) | ||
| 83 | Dampness | chronic respiratory disease | other | yes/no | OR | 2.10(1.36-3.50) | Blackman et al. (2001) | ||
| 84 | Unwaged household | chronic respiratory disease | other | yes/no | OR | 1.73(1.24-2.41) | Blackman et al. (2001) | ||
| 85 | Unsafe neighborhood | mental health problems | other | yes/no | OR | 2.35(1.41-3.92) | Blackman et al. (2001) | ||
| 86 | Chronic respiratory problems | mental health problems | other | yes/no | OR | 2.35(1.50-3.69) | Blackman et al. (2001) | ||
| 87 | Draughts | mental health problems | other | yes/no | OR | 2.28(1.41-3.69) | Blackman et al. (2001) |
Note 1 ERF of indoor dampness on respiratory health effects
Note 2 WP6 well-being report (password-protected)
Note 3 ERF of PM2.5 on mortality in general population
Note 4 Concentration-response to PM2.5
Note 5 Health impact of radon in Europe
⇤# : Comments on Hopton and Hunt (1996):
- Row 5: Are you sure that the only possible exposure route is inhalation?
- Rows 6 to 9: Instead of "no", exposure route should be "not applicable".
- Rows 5 to 9: Use periods instead of commas as decimal points. --Marjo 10:22, 4 February 2013 (EET)
←# : Comments have been considered. --Juho Kutvonen 13:52, 4 February 2013 (EET)
⇤# : Comments on Sidebotham et al. (2002)
- Rows 59, 66 and 67 are filled correctly. What comes to rows 60 to 65, small but essential changes should be done in columns "exposure metric" and "exposure unit". An example: "exposure metric" of row 60 should be "2 to 3 house moves in previous 5 years" and the respective "exposure unit" should be "medium vs. low". Based on this example, can you figure out the correct structures of rows 61 to 65? --Marjo 10:41, 4 February 2013 (EET)
←# : Good revisions, you have the right idea. However, some minor modifications would be appropriate: in row 62 "exposure unit" can simply be "yes/no", as the accomodation either is overcrowded or is not; no other possibilities exist. In row 65 the "exposure metric" should be "Social network score < 21" and "exposure unit" again simply "yes/no". --Marjo 15:44, 6 February 2013 (EET)
⇤# : Comments on Packer et al. (1994)
- In the paper of Packer et al. (1994) no ORs are given. Instead, they have measured prevalences. Therefore, "response metric" should be "prevalence" and "ERF parameter" should be "percentage unit change".
- Row 69: According the Table 4, "exposure metric" is damp housing and "response" is "smoking". Based on this, can you figure out the correct structures of rows 70 to 73? --Marjo 11:05, 4 February 2013 (EET)
⇤# : Comments on Blackman et al. (2001)
- "Response metric" should describe how the response was measured: number of cases, incidence, prevalence,... I see that you have filled "response metric" boxes according earlier versions of this table, unfortunately, "response metric" was not used correctly there. The information you now have in boxes "response" and "response metric" all belongs to "response". You could do the following: decide and formulate the most accurate responses and put them into "response" -boxes and empty the "response metric" -boxes. If you can define the response metric, i.e. number of cases, incidence, prevalence etc.. used in the article, you can put it into "response metric" box. --Marjo 14:39, 4 February 2013 (EET)
Rationale
An example for RefTag functionality: Pope et al. (2002) [1]
Juho Kutvonen and Salla Mönkkönen Hopton and Hunt (1996) [2]
Isabell Rumrich and Stefania Caporaso Sidebotham et al. (2002) [3]
Soroush Majlesi and Adnan Ahmad Packer et al. (1994) [4]
Jukka Hirvonen and Sami Rissanen Blackman et al. (2001) [5]
Precision and Plausability of Hopton and Hunt (1996)
- Reporting bias: Perhaps ít´s difficult to use subjective data due to reporting bias. This is because people may answer in different ways or they don´t answer at all. In addition, people experience household conditions differently.←# : Good points. --Marjo 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EET)
- Possible confounding variables were controlled. --# : Can you give examples of the confounding variables mentioned in the paper? --Marjo 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EET)←# : Sociodemographic and economic variables, e.g. age and income. --Juho Kutvonen 12:23, 6 February 2013 (EET)
- Selection bias: The sample is clearly not representative of the general population and therefore the analysis focuses on differences within the sample. Thus it´s worth considering if the results can be generalized to whole population.←# : Good points. --Marjo 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EET)
Precision and Plausability of Sidebotham et al. (2002)
- Maltreatment is defined and measured as registration for physical injury, neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse. That way all maltreatments, which are not registred are not taken into account.
- The measurement of the social class is not too accurate, because no allowance for nonworking mothers and no parental social class allocated for single mothers can be applied.
- The nature of relationship with child maltreatment is complex (confounder, cultural values, etc). That causes problems finding an association or causality between an exposure factor and maltreatment. Moreover, maltreatment has different definition in different cultural groups.
- The parental income is not measured directly, but car ownership as a proxy indicator and the receipt of welfare payment are used.
- Controlling for social factors was done.
- Large amount of prospectively data are collected and used in in the study, which is a clear strength.
- The participation is lower among the maltreated group, which might influence the outcome of the statistical analysis or bias the results of the study.
- The risk of social bias and no way of measuring the effect of such bias. A social bias can be defined as a prejudgement of a specific social group. In this case, it might be that those, who collected the data might have expectations, that parents which lower or higher social background are more prone to maltreat their child and let this expectation influence their interpretation of the results. This is not very likely here, though, because all parameters which were used for the analysis can me measured and there is not much freedome for interpretation.
--# : You have listed correct points that may affect precision and plausibility of the ERF; well done. However, it would be easier for the reader if you would use full sentences or otherwise would explain a bit more in detail how these issues affect the precision and plausibity of ERF.
- What is meant with "social bias" here? --Marjo 15:06, 4 February 2013 (EET)
--# : We added explanations. --Isabell Rumrich 09:58, 7 February 2013 (EET)
Precision and Plausability of Packer et al. (1994)
- health problems: possibility of headache, mental problems, emotional reactions, social isolation and pain.
- social factors: unemployment, single parent, lone adult and unemployment with sickness or disability
- lifestyle: consumption of alcohol and smoking
--# : It might be helpful for the reader if you would use full sentences in order to explain how the above issues affect the precision and plausibility of ERF. --Marjo 15:28, 4 February 2013 (EET)
- it is still difficult to understand the housing condition because none of the studies are complete and detailed so that direct comparison with the questions cannot be made and measurements of parameters, potential confounding factors as well as clear dose-response relationship should be adjusted for example physical effect of damp is responsible for muscle tension, backache and headache but on the other hand the study poins out that there is a strong relationship between damp housing and adverse health impact. --# : I see that the two last points are in concordance with each other. --Marjo 15:28, 4 February 2013 (EET)
Precision and Plausability of Blackman et al. (2001)
- Bias in respondents answers to realistically evaluate their and family members health.
- Social class: in survey area major of participants with low income and/or need of social wellfare.
- Some housings that where targets on first survey were demolished during second survey.
- No data from comparison neighbourhood without renewal to back up observed health changes after renewal program.
- Relationship between dampness, draughts and mental health is uncertain.
- Multivariate analysis usings regression model was used to control variables, such as economic, housing, respiratory and mental health related.
Dependencies
Formula
See also
Keywords
References
- ↑ *Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K & Thurston KD (2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287(9), 1132-1141.
- ↑ *Hopton J.L. and Hunt S.M.(1996). Housing conditions and mental health in a disadvantaged area in Scotland. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1996;50:56-61
- ↑ *Sidebotham et al. (2002). Child maltreatment in the “Children of the Nineties:” deprivation, class, and social networks in a UK sample.Child Abuse and Neglect 2002;26:1243-1259
- ↑ *Packer et al. Damp housing and adult health: results from a lifestyle study in Worcester, England.Journal of epidemiology and community health 1994;48(6):555–559
- ↑ *Blackman T, Harvey J, Lawrence M & Simon A. (2001). Neighbourhood renewal and health: evidence from a local case study. Health & Place 7(2001), 93-103.
Related files
<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>
