Public Health Ontario's Environmental Burden of Disease Project

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Greco ◽  
Jinhee Kim ◽  
Chris Drudge ◽  
Stephanie Young ◽  
Elaina MacIntyre ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Hilderink ◽  
D Schram ◽  
M Plasmans

Abstract Background RIVM-National Institute for Public Health and the Environment published as part of the 2018 Dutch Public Health Foresight report, an update of the Disease Burden, including the Environmental Burden of disease. This report is not only relevant for the Ministry of Health but also for other policy arenas, to support policy making with the objective of improving health. Methods Environment factors are distinguished by indoor and outdoor environment. The following environmental factors have been taken into account; Air pollution (PM10/NO2), UV radiation, noise, second-hand smoking, carbon monoxide poisoning and indoor dampness. The effects of chemical substances are not included. Making use of the population attributable fraction, the fraction part of mortality, disease burden and health care expenditures attributable to environmental factors is calculated. For this method, data on exposure as well as the dose-response relationship (relative risks) are used. Results Some 4% of the disease burden in the Netherlands is caused by environmental factors and that costs us more than 1 billion euros of care per year. This corresponds with 200,000 DALYs; of which 175,000 by outside environment and 25,000 by indoor environment. In total, almost 13000 deaths can be attributed to environmental factors. Air pollution causes by far most of this disease burden. After that, exposure to UV radiation and second-hand smoking rank highest. Conclusions A considerable disease burden, number of deaths and health expenditures is attributable to environmental factors and could at least in theory be avoided by improving our environment. Air pollution in particular plays an important role in this. In addition, even a greater health gain could be achieved if environment factors are tackled and healthy behavior is at the same time stimulated.


Author(s):  
Kylie Mason ◽  
Kirstin Lindberg ◽  
Deborah Read ◽  
Barry Borman

Developing environmental health indicators is challenging and applying a conceptual framework and indicator selection criteria may not be sufficient to prioritise potential indicators to monitor. This study developed a new approach for prioritising potential environmental health indicators, using the example of the indoor environment for New Zealand. A three-stage process of scoping, selection, and design was implemented. A set of potential indicators (including 4 exposure indicators and 20 health indicators) were initially identified and evaluated against indicator selection criteria. The health indicators were then further prioritised according to their public health impact and assessed by the five following sub-criteria: number of people affected (based on environmental burden of disease statistics); severity of health impact; whether vulnerable populations were affected and/or large inequalities were apparent; whether the indicator related to multiple environmental exposures; and policy relevance. Eight core indicators were ultimately selected, as follows: living in crowded households, second-hand smoke exposure, maternal smoking at two weeks post-natal, asthma prevalence, asthma hospitalisations, lower respiratory tract infection hospitalisations, meningococcal disease notifications, and sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI). Additionally, indicators on living in damp and mouldy housing and children’s injuries in the home, were identified as potential indicators, along with attributable burden indicators. Using public health impact criteria and an environmental burden of disease approach was valuable in prioritising and selecting the most important health impacts to monitor, using robust evidence and objective criteria.


2021 ◽  
Vol 150 ◽  
pp. 112072
Author(s):  
Jose Alejandro Romero Herrera ◽  
Sofie Theresa Thomsen ◽  
Lea Sletting Jakobsen ◽  
Sisse Fagt ◽  
Karina Banasik ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 122 (5) ◽  
pp. 439-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otto Hänninen ◽  
Anne B. Knol ◽  
Matti Jantunen ◽  
Tek-Ang Lim ◽  
André Conrad ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
pp. 2-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Caravanos ◽  
Lina Hernandez Gutierrez ◽  
Bret Ericson ◽  
Richard Fuller

Background. Although toxic waste sites have been well investigated in many developed countries, their prevalence and health impact have not been well documented in low and middle income countries where risks attributable to environmental pollution are generally higher than in developed nations. Methods. We compared the burden of disease from toxic waste sites expressed in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) with the same measurement for other threats in India, Indonesia and the Philippines. We used Blacksmith Institute for a Pure Earth's DALY estimates for chemical exposure at 373 toxic waste sites in the 3 countries and World Health Organization (WHO) DALY estimates for different health conditions in the same countries. Results. Chromium VI causes the majority of DALYs among chemicals in India, while lead does so in the Philippines and Indonesia. In India, exposure to chromium VI showed higher DALY estimates than health conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and various cancers. In Indonesia, exposure to chromium VI and lead presented higher DALYs than conditions such as upper respiratory infections. In the Philippines, lead had higher DALYs than most of the examined conditions, including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS. Conclusions. This study highlights that the burden of disease expressed in DALYs from toxic waste sites may be greater than previously recognized and greater than other well addressed public health threats. We call attention to the need for surveillance of toxic waste sites, epidemiological analysis of the associations between exposure to toxic chemicals and outcomes, and remediation of chemical contamination in India, Indonesia and the Philippines.


eLife ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Senjuti Saha ◽  
Sudipta Saha ◽  
Samir K Saha

Research laboratories in low- and middle-income countries, where the global burden of disease is highest, face systemic challenges in conducting research and public health surveillance. An international effort is needed to overcome the paywalls, customs regulations and lack of local suppliers that hinder the scientific community in these countries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document